My Review: My audio journey has spanned almost every configuration imaginable: basic 5.1 wired sets, LG soundbars, Sony AV receivers with Bose systems, and eventually the standard Sonos 5.1. I recently took the ultimate leap, upgrading via Sevenoaks to the full Sonos flagship setup: the Arc Ultra, two Era 300s, and a Sub Gen 3.
Moving from a standard 5.1 to this 9.1.4 system has been a revelation. Here is my honest take:
The Positives (+)
The Gold Standard of Sound: Sonos is undoubtedly the king of the sound world. It offers a deep, premium quality bass paired with a crispness that is a joy for anyone who listens with "attentive ears." Once you go Sonos, you can’t live without it.
Simplest Setup Ever: This was the easiest system I’ve ever used. Connect the Arc Ultra first, then add the other pieces one by one—the whole system bonds flawlessly. No tech-headache required.
True Dolby Atmos: To truly enjoy Atmos, you need this specific kit. The Era 300s and Arc Ultra work together to create a massive 3D soundstage, especially once you run the Trueplay tuning.
Practical Features: Settings like Speech Enhancement and Night Mode make the system very user-friendly for real-world living.
Premium Value: It’s pricey, but the build quality, brand trust, and extended warranty (like the 6-year one from Sevenoaks) make it a great long-term investment.
The Negatives (-)
The "ARC" Glitch: Random sound drops are a known issue. I often have to switch my TV audio to internal speakers and back to the Arc to "wake it up." For this price, it should be seamless.
The App Prison: The Sonos app feels like a "control freak" environment. You are largely restricted to playing what they allow, often requiring premium subscriptions to even use the added services.
Bluetooth & Connectivity: Even with Bluetooth hardware, you can’t easily just "cast" a song from your phone to the whole system. Adding a personal music library is a hurdle that isn't suitable for non-tech-savvy users.
Atmos Content Gap: True Dolby Atmos content is still hard to find, and when you do find it, it’s often hidden behind the most expensive subscription tiers or labeled with "fake" Atmos tags.
Final Verdict: I love this system day and night. I’m currently running a single Sub Gen 3 and plan to add a Sub 4 in the future. If you want the best sound and easiest physical setup on the planet, buy Sonos … just be prepared to live in their ecosystem on their terms.
I am here to share my experience and open to share suggestions with you guys
**Big WOW Factor** The Gold Standard with a Few Handcuffs
+1+1It seems to me,
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 am sorry to see you go, though I believe you may have misinterpreted my position. My views on the hardware have remained consistent: the Arc Ultra and Era 300s offer crisp, world class sound that I enjoy immensely. My "hand is raised" only for consumer freedom. I am standing firm on the quality of the speakers while simultaneously critiquing the software infrastructure. I don't see those as conflicting views, one can love a car's engine while hating the fact that the manufacturer locks the dashboard behind a subscription. I heed my own concerns every day, which is why I am vocal about them here.
+1
“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.
the petrol station analogy still holds because the car owner should have the ultimate choice of how they "refuel." If I have a compatible audio codec on my device, the decision of where that content comes from should belong to me, not the hardware manufacturer or their third party alliances.
+1Is it Google Cast that you want?
@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.
Can you list the “open casting standards” that Sonos doesn’t support?
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.
@melvimbe,
When I speak of open standards, I am referring to the universal ability to "cast" or "send" audio without proprietary gatekeeping. While Google Cast or AirPlay may involve licensing, they represent a level of interoperability that consumers (like me) expect in 2026. Sonos makes a conscious choice to maintain a "walled garden" to control the user experience. While that may be a "good business strategy" for them, it is not necessarily a good outcome for the consumer who wants to use their high end hardware with the same flexibility as a basic Bluetooth receiver. We shouldn't have to choose between "ease of use" and "basic freedom."
+1
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.
@AjTrek1
I appreciate your honesty regarding the scale of economy. We often yield to these giants because they make life convenient, but that convenience is exactly how our freedom is slowly eroded. I use my Nvidia Shield Pro specifically because it allows me to exercise that freedom and customise my experience. Yes, that comes with the responsibility of not turning it into a "paper weight," but I would rather have the right to make a mistake than be forbidden from trying.
The fact that Sonos remains a "niche" product with a high cost of ownership is precisely why the standard for user freedom should be higher. If I am paying a premium, I should be buying a tool, not a service that Sonos can alter or restrict at their whim. I'll be spending my time off experimenting with my setup and perhaps looking for that Sub 4 to see if it can finally provide the "untethered" experience I am looking for.
@melvimbe,
When I speak of open standards, I am referring to the universal ability to "cast" or "send" audio without proprietary gatekeeping. While Google Cast or AirPlay may involve licensing, they represent a level of interoperability that consumers (like me) expect in 2026. Sonos makes a conscious choice to maintain a "walled garden" to control the user experience. While that may be a "good business strategy" for them, it is not necessarily a good outcome for the consumer who wants to use their high end hardware with the same flexibility as a basic Bluetooth receiver. We shouldn't have to choose between "ease of use" and "basic freedom."
Consider adding a music player that supports your preferred casting method (for example, a WiiM Pro) and connecting it to a Sonos speaker via line-in.
@melvimbe,
When I speak of open standards, I am referring to the universal ability to "cast" or "send" audio without proprietary gatekeeping. While Google Cast or AirPlay may involve licensing, they represent a level of interoperability that consumers (like me) expect in 2026. Sonos makes a conscious choice to maintain a "walled garden" to control the user experience. While that may be a "good business strategy" for them, it is not necessarily a good outcome for the consumer who wants to use their high end hardware with the same flexibility as a basic Bluetooth receiver. We shouldn't have to choose between "ease of use" and "basic freedom."
That is not what an open standard is, though. You’re just making up your own definition to fit your point of view. Like it or not, there is a difference between not adopting a free, open standard (the actual definition of the term) and not paying a license fee to use another company’s proprietary protocols. Obviously, you can chose not to buy products that don’t offer the features you’re interested in,
@melvimbe,
When I speak of open standards, I am referring to the universal ability to "cast" or "send" audio without proprietary gatekeeping. While Google Cast or AirPlay may involve licensing, they represent a level of interoperability that consumers (like me) expect in 2026. Sonos makes a conscious choice to maintain a "walled garden" to control the user experience. While that may be a "good business strategy" for them, it is not necessarily a good outcome for the consumer who wants to use their high end hardware with the same flexibility as a basic Bluetooth receiver. We shouldn't have to choose between "ease of use" and "basic freedom."
Since when does a corporation put consumer expectations/outcome over company profits and/or survivability? I’ve got news for you, most consumers are idiots, and following their expectations quickly leads to corporate suicide. A good corporation balances customer wants/expectations with ROI, and though it may not be that obvious (or even beneficial) to the average consumer, analysis of the business needs of the corporation are (usually) far better left to those in the know.
Otherwise you have stories like the demise of Squeezebox, which was run by a bunch of Open Source folks who thought it was a brilliant idea to offer a free version of their software that could run on a Raspberry Pi costing hundreds of dollars less than their own hardware.
+19”Otherwise you have stories like the demise of Squeezebox, which was run by a bunch of Open Source folks who thought it was a brilliant idea to offer a free version of their software that could run on a Raspberry Pi costing hundreds of dollars less than their own hardware.”
The Squeezebox hardware may be gone, but the software has everybody beat. I play my WiiM stuff using LMS + iPeng. Sounds great. Logitech ruined the hardware sales. I remember going into a Best Buy to check out the Squeezebox Touch. Logitech decided a static display was the way to demonstrate the Touch. So there was a Touch & its remote glued to a board with a fake album cover stuck on the Touch screen. I asked a “blue shirt” if I could hear the Touch in action. You can guess the answer. I do own a Touch and love it ( I did NOT buy it from Best Buy ). Even if it stopped playing music it would make a great clock.
The Squeezebox hardware may be gone, but the software has everybody beat.
Uhh, that was my point. The fact Squeezebox was worried about a “good outcome for the consumer” led them to release a free hardware emulator that could run on any PC, which was corporate suicide once people started duplicating their hardware on cheap Raspberry Pi computers. The Squeeze forums being chock full of posts telling you how to bypass the hardware within minutes of the line being discontinued is proof of that.
+19I think the Squeezebox Touch would have done better if Logitech hadn’t screwed up the marketing. That same Best Buy with the Squeezebox Touch static display was demonstrating Sonos stuff that you could ask someone to show you how it works & let you listen to it. I didn’t buy the Sonos stuff because of the 16/44.1 restriction & the price of entry was much higher than the Squeezebox Touch. I only have Sonos now for the Dolby Atmos playback capability & the Move makes a great sounding outdoors speaker.
I think the Squeezebox Touch would have done better if Logitech hadn’t screwed up the marketing. That same Best Buy with the Squeezebox Touch static display was demonstrating Sonos stuff that you could ask someone to show you how it works & let you listen to it. I didn’t buy the Sonos stuff because of the 16/44.1 restriction & the price of entry was much higher than the Squeezebox Touch. I only have Sonos now for the Dolby Atmos playback capability & the Move makes a great sounding outdoors speaker.
I've absolutely no idea what this has to do with the thread subject of corporations catering to customers' expectations. But hey, you do you.
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.