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

​@nik9669a 
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.

​@106rallye 

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.

@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."

@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.

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.

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, 

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.  

”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.

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.  

 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.

@Raguu, you hit the nail on the head. With my previous systems, I could turn on my phone or laptop, connect via Bluetooth, and play any content from any app or website instantly. Now, despite owning a much more expensive system, that simple task has become a difficult bottleneck.
 

@melvimbe, while we can debate the technical definition of an open standard, the practical reality for me as a consumer is about freedom of choice. I want to play the content I choose through the media I choose. When a system forces everything through a specific software gate, it feels inherently unfair to the person who actually paid for the hardware.
 

@jgatie, I appreciate your perspective on corporate ROI, but my point remains that a company should not shove specific services or restrictions down a customer's throat. If they offer a premium service, it should be a choice, not a requirement to make the basic hardware function as expected.

 

On a different note, I am still very curious about the Sub 4. Has anyone here actually compared the Sub Gen 3 with the Sub 4 in a real world setting? I am tempted because the Gen 3 is appearing quite cheaply on Facebook Marketplace at the moment, and I want to know if the Sub 4 offers a sublime enough difference to justify the extra cost. Also, if anyone has experience placing a sub directly under the settee, I would love to hear how it affected the Atmos experience.
 

Finally, I am still debating whether to add a Sonos Five to my bedroom or look for an alternative. I love the Arc Ultra and Era 300 setup for my movies, but I want to ensure my bedroom music experience is just as impressive without being further locked into a restrictive ecosystem.

My advice to you, based on your entrenched views regarding what you refer to as the “restrictive Sonos ecosystem”, is that you should not get the Five. Nor should you add to your system with any other Sonos devices. I can’t see the ecosystem changing much in the coming years.
 

You have expressed considerable  concerns over the ecosystem. Buying more Sonos kit is indefensible unless you change your views. 

@nik9669a
 

That is a very interesting piece of advice. May I ask, is this your general advice to everyone who dares to critique a brand’s software, or is it specifically for me?
 

It seems a bit extreme to suggest that a consumer is "indefensible" for buying hardware they enjoy while simultaneously advocating for better software rights. If everyone followed your logic and simply stopped buying or stayed silent when they noticed a flaw, products would never improve. I can love the sound of the Arc Ultra and still believe that the "walled garden" approach is a disservice to the customer. My views aren't entrenched; they are simply based on the reality of the consumer experience in 2026. I am curious why you find the desire for freedom so problematic that you would advise against a purchase of hardware that I have already stated sounds excellent.

It’s advice that seems appropriate to the circumstances, given your views and concerns expressed to date. 
 

As you’ve already said several times, you like the hardware but not your perception of the infrastructure. That infrastructure is unlikely to change. Hence my advice today. Several days ago my advice was for you to give serious consideration before making any future purchases. Your entrenched views expressed since then have prompted my reply as I have done today in response to your specific question regarding a further purchase.
 

For other users, in different circumstances, I have encouraged additional purchases and shall continue to do so when appropriate. 

Thanks for your advice, but it doesn’t really address the wider issue that many Sonos users are facing. I actually checked a discussion on Facebook earlier (couple of hours ago), and people were talking about the same problems and sharing alternative options between themselves.

If I can find a suitable alternative, I’ll certainly consider your suggestion. Otherwise, I’ve already stepped back from the idea of trying to play music through the Sonos Arc Ultra. I’ve never had a Fiver in my life, and I’d rather rely on the opinions of people with genuine, hands‑on experience.

I would agree, if those software gates were not there when you bought the hardware, and added later on.    Since Google casting has never been a feature of Sonos, I don’t see how you can claim this is unfair.  Again, if lack of Google casting is a deal breaker for you,  then it should have kept you from buying the product to begin with.  If it’s just a ‘con’ for you, in comparison to competing products, then sure.  That makes sense.  Claiming that it is somehow unfair to consumers is taking is a bit of an exaggeration.

I don’t really think there is a lot of audio differences between the Sub Gen’s.  What you get with the newer Gen’s is better hardware, better wireless card, etc.  I don’t think I would replace my current subs with the latest Gen for that reason, unless there was a known issue, or compatibility issue.  My hesitation in buy used though is just that, it’s used. Likely out of warranty, perhaps damaged, etc  Saving some money may be worth it though.

I would opt for a pair of 300s over Fives for a bedroom personally. Unless your room your bedroom is the size of an aparment, it’s more than you need.  The 300s also give you atmos music capabilities.  However, it’s obviously still part of the Sonos ecosystem, so if that really is a dealbreaker for you, which you seem indecisive about, than you shouldn’t be getting Sonos at all.

I appreciate the candid advice, Danny. (@melvimbe) To your point on the hardware, I agree that a used Gen 3 is a very sensible way to expand without "breaking the bank," provided the unit is in good condition.

Regarding the Arc Ultra, I have a couple of technical curiosities for the group. First, am I correct in assuming that by adding a second sub, the Arc Ultra’s "Sound Motion" woofer will be able to offload even more of the heavy lifting? My expectation is that by passing those taxing low frequencies to a dual-sub setup, the Arc Ultra can further refine its performance in the mid and high ranges, leading to even greater clarity in dialogue and Atmos effects. Has anyone experienced this specific "offloading" benefit after moving from one sub to two on the Ultra?

Secondly, I am still very tempted to try placing a sub directly under my settee. Since the Arc Ultra won't allow a third sub (which is a shame, as I’d certainly consider it!), I want to ensure the two I have are working at their absolute peak. If anyone has experimented with "tactile" placement under furniture, I’d love to know if it enhanced the "rumble" of your Atmos tracks.

As for the bedroom, the Era 300s are tempting for their Atmos capabilities, but my hesitation remains the "bottleneck" we discussed. Unlike the older Fives, however, I understand the Era 300s do support Bluetooth. This might actually be the compromise I need, using Bluetooth to play from any source on my Samsung tablet when I want freedom, and using the Sonos ecosystem when I want the full spatial audio experience. It seems I’m not as "indecisive" as it appears; I’m simply looking for a system that works for me, rather than me working for the system!

It is my understand that add a sub will always divert the lower frequencies to the sub, freeing up the sound bar (or other speakers) that would otherwise play those low notes.  The same does apply for the Arc Ultra and the sound motion woofer.  Adding a 2nd sub doesn’t really change that as both subs are playing the same frequency range for the setup.  I wouldn’t expect more clarity with a 2nd sub, only more bass.

I believe others have placed the sub under the sofa and been happy with the results.  I can’t say that it give you the full rumble effect that custom solutions, or custom made furniture can provide.  I have my sub placed behind the couch (wall behind it) and am not disappointed.  I can say it’s a rumble, but I can ‘feel’ it at times.  YMMV.

I’ve been happy with Era 300s and sub in my bedroom?  Is the sub needed?  I already had the sub when I upgrade from a pair of Ones+ sub, so it wasn’t really a decision for me.  I have used buetooth occasionally(for the rarely used TV in the room), but am not pretty satisfied with the streaming options in the Sonos app (I use Plex for local library stuff). 

@melvimbe - 
 

That is a very fair point regarding the crossover, Danny. I suppose my expectation for "refinement" is more about the psychological effect of a perfectly balanced room, but I take your point that the frequency shift itself stays the same.

I’ve decided I’m definitely going to experiment with the "Sub under the sofa" placement. I’m quite lucky as I have a good amount of space behind the sofa too, where I’ve already placed my Era 300s on stands. Adding a second sub there, or directly underneath, should add a wonderful tactile vibration, a bit of a "4D effect" to go along with the Atmos height channels. I might have to raise the sofa slightly to give it that necessary inch of breathing room, but it sounds like a project well worth the effort.

As for the bedroom, the Era 300s are looking like the winner over the Fives. Knowing I can use the Bluetooth 5.0 connection for my "unsupported" sources while still having the option for full Atmos streaming through the app is exactly the kind of flexibility I’ve been looking for. It seems I can have my "freedom" and my high-end audio too.

I’ll be keeping a keen eye out for a deal on a second sub over the next couple of weeks. Thanks to everyone for the technical steer!

 The biggest gain you can get by using two subwoofers is the evening out of room modes.  A single subwoofer can suffer from resonant frequencies bouncing off the ceiling & walls causing peaks and nulls.  A second sub may also suffer from room modes, but because it’s in a different location in the room the peaks & nulls will effect different frequencies than the first subwoofer.  This helps flatten the frequency response curve.  
 If you TruePlay the room with the two subwoofers you should not necessarily get more bass.  I would certainly not want that result, but with two subwoofers you should get better balanced bass.

The reverse situation is also a possibility, two Subs in the wrong locations can reinforce the resonance peaks. 

Careful testing, best with test signals/media/streams,  and trying multiple locations in search of the most even sound at your listening positions is important. It also gives Trueplay the best chance of dialing in the room corrections.

@MoPac

I completely agree, MoPac. My interest in a second sub is precisely to "fill the room" and eliminate those null spots. Currently, with just one sub in the front right corner, I can tell the bass is localized. By adding a second unit… likely behind or under the sofa … I am hoping to achieve that "even" pressure where the deep rumble feels like it is coming from the atmosphere of the room rather than a specific box. It is the "balanced bass" you mentioned that I am after, rather than just raw volume.

@Stanley_4

You raise a very valid point, Stanley. I am aware that simply adding a second sub doesn't automatically mean better sound; if the two subs are poorly positioned, they can indeed cancel each other out or create unpleasant resonance peaks.

I intend to be quite meticulous with my testing. I plan to use various Atmos test signals and my favourite "reference" media to find the sweet spot. My goal is to achieve that deep, rumbling physical sensation by placing the second sub under the settee, but I will be careful to ensure it doesn't "muddy" the room's overall response. As you suggested, I’ll be running Trueplay after every major move to give the system the best chance of correcting the room's unique acoustics. I want that "thump" in the chest, but not at the expense of the clarity I've worked so hard to achieve with the Arc Ultra.

 I’m surprised you detect the location of the sub.  I figured with the Arc Ultra being capable of a frequency response lower than the Arc the crossover would be low enough to make the sub essentially disappear.  I have the Arc & Sub 3 and after TruePlay the sub is not easy to locate, at least with my eyes closed.

 Mine is located on the right side next to the TV cabinet, so not in a corner.  Corners tend to exaggerate bass.

 I was getting a buzzing sound when I first set up the sub.  Turned out to be the shelves of the TV cabinet vibrating against the cabinet wall.  Wedge shaped rubber door stops fixed that.