Question

Sonos sub and ethernet

  • 26 August 2019
  • 14 replies
  • 497 views

Badge +1
Is there an advantage to connecting my sub-woofer to a nearby play:1 via ethernet cable? Both currently connect to a router in another room.

Is there a disadvantage?

The reason I would do this is to take some load off of the wireless router.

14 replies

Assuming that they're bonded together?

There's no downside to it. The Sonos system is designed to take the "lowest cost" path to a device, so if the wire is "faster/cleaner" to the SUB, then it will use that method. If the wireless signal is "faster/cleaner", it would use that instead. Almost always the former, rather than the latter, IMHO, but I suppose there might be cases.
By the way, if you're interested in removing traffic from your Wifi, you should put your whole Sonos system on SonosNet by wiring one device to your router with an ethernet cable, and removing the SSID/password data from your controller. That will force it to use SonosNet, which is separate from your own wifi network. Probably best to make sure they're using different channels, too. I've got my system set up that way. My wifi is on 11, my Sonos is on 1.
Badge +1
Hi, ok.this is really interesting Bruce. It thought the downside might be that the play:1 has to handle double the traffic - both for itself and for the sub. Sounds like that isn't the case.

I do have one speaker connected to the router via ethernet cable. I thought the SonosNet.would connecxt automatically.

I have three controllers, one on my laptop, one on my android phone, and one on my iPad pro. How do I remove the SSID/password data? When I do that, how will my controller connect to the SonosNet?

Thanks again!
Heh.

Let me attempt to explain. And hopefully be correct :)

Your SUB is bonded to your PLAY:1 anyway, correct? So the PLAY:1 gets "all" the signal, and the the Sonos system splits it up and sends the part that belongs to the SUB along to it. So effectively, you're never reducing the amount going to the PLAY:1, it's always getting the full signal.

If you're already on SonosNet, then there's to "tax" you're paying on your own wifi signal, other than any potential interference, if they were on the same channel.

SonosNet is created by the Sonos device that you've got connected to your router. in that case, your various controllers aren't connecting to SonosNet, they're connecting to your wifi, which is created by your router. Your router "knows" that such and such IP addresses are connected through this device/IP address, and routes the data appropriately. No need to connect (and it's not possible anymore anyway) to connect your controller devices to SonosNet. Apparently, that used to be an option for Android devices, they could see the SonosNet network, but it's never been available for iOS devices.

If you've never entered your SSID and password into the controller, there's no need to delete it. That would be only necessary if at one point your Sonos system was in fact connected to your wifi, which wasn't clear from your original post.
Just to add, it's generally not a good idea to strap two wireless devices together with a cable run between them. This can mess up the way Sonos chooses to route traffic wirelessly.

The Play:1 does indeed take just the one stream. It then sends a stream directly to the Sub. Left to its own devices it will do this wirelessly by the direct path between the two units. It doesn't have to make a round trip via the wired Sonos device at the router.
Userlevel 7
Badge +20
Just to add, it's generally not a good idea to strap two wireless devices together with a cable run between them. This can mess up the way Sonos chooses to route traffic wirelessly.

Merely out of curiosity, what's the reason for this?

Just to add, it's generally not a good idea to strap two wireless devices together with a cable run between them. This can mess up the way Sonos chooses to route traffic wirelessly.Merely out of curiosity, what's the reason for this?

The Direct Routing algorithm used for peer connections in groups apparently gets confused if two otherwise wireless devices are wired together. This was advice from a senior tech, borne out by my own observations.
Digressing just a bit - if one had a chance of running an ethernet wire from the router to a stereo paired play 1 set up, which of the two speakers is the better one to wire it to? Does the other one in that case gets its signals from the one to which the wire is attached?
Digressing just a bit - if one had a chance of running an ethernet wire from the router to a stereo paired play 1 set up, which of the two speakers is the better one to wire it to? Does the other one in that case gets its signals from the one to which the wire is attached?
Technically it would be better to wire the 'group coordinator' of the stereo pair, which is typically the left one. There would thus be less bandwidth demand.

In reality, since the wireless unit should indeed connect to the wired one, it would probably not make much difference either way.
This is further to the discussion on uncompressed play of TV audio which I am addressing via wired connection from the Connect involved to the router, which is wired to a play 1 serving as root bridge.

There is another play 1 pair in the path of an ethernet wire being run to another room for extending the WiFi to there, hence there is the opportunity to wire this pair as well to make its play also foolproof when added to the group originating from the Connect. If I had a wire connecting the left speaker to the router, would this not do this more reliably than leaving both parts of the stereo pair unwired as they are now?

PS: On re-reading, are you saying yes to the above, but also that it does not matter which of the two play 1 units I run the wire to?
If you can wire the left unit of a pair, so much the better. But in practice it usually doesn't matter because the two units are typically a few meters apart in the same room.
Userlevel 7
Badge +20


Just to add, it's generally not a good idea to strap two wireless devices together with a cable run between them. This can mess up the way Sonos chooses to route traffic wirelessly.Merely out of curiosity, what's the reason for this?
The Direct Routing algorithm used for peer connections in groups apparently gets confused if two otherwise wireless devices are wired together. This was advice from a senior tech, borne out by my own observations.


Thanks. I wonder if this confusion issue has now been fixed, since I have inter-speaker cabling deployed in a couple of places and Sonos now appears to have no problem selecting the wired path between the speakers.

I recall that I raised an issue seemingly related to this in a thread quite some time ago [1], in which you and Jeff S from Sonos participated. After a subsequent software update I've not seen the issue again. Perhaps there was a fix in this area of functionality.

Anyway, just a thought.

[1] https://en.community.sonos.com/troubleshooting-228999/no-sound-from-rh-speaker-of-play-5-pair-reboot-required-diagnostics-1347104208-6804783
Thanks. I wonder if this confusion issue has now been fixed, since I have inter-speaker cabling deployed in a couple of places and Sonos now appears to have no problem selecting the wired path between the speakers.
Don't be misled by the STP topology. That could well select the wired path; and definitely will if the radio is disabled in one of the units, as touched on in that other thread.

The point about Direct Routing in groups is that it bypasses the STP topology (hence the "Direct" bit), effectively jumping between 'branches' thereof. Somewhere in the diagnostics that superimposed topology is probably visible. It used to be observable indirectly in the WiFi mode traffic statistics, but these are now withdrawn from user view.

A couple of years back I measured traffic flows in SonosNet mode, and found that linking two wireless nodes by Ethernet and disabling the radio in one of them apparently resulted in Direct Routing not taking the optimal wireless paths in a group that included the radio-off node but where that node was not the group coordinator. A bit of a pathological case, I grant you, but I took due note.

The picture could of course have changed, but I've seen no evidence of significant work in that area.
Userlevel 7
Badge +20

Thanks. I wonder if this confusion issue has now been fixed, since I have inter-speaker cabling deployed in a couple of places and Sonos now appears to have no problem selecting the wired path between the speakers.Don't be misled by the STP topology. That could well select the wired path; and definitely will if the radio is disabled in one of the units, as touched on in that other thread.

The point about Direct Routing in groups is that it bypasses the STP topology (hence the "Direct" bit), effectively jumping between 'branches' thereof. Somewhere in the diagnostics that superimposed topology is probably visible. It used to be observable indirectly in the WiFi mode traffic statistics, which of course are now withdrawn from user view.

A couple of years back I measured traffic flows in SonosNet mode, and found that linking two wireless nodes by Ethernet and disabling the radio in one of them apparently resulted in Direct Routing not taking the optimal wireless paths in a group that included the radio-off node but where that node was not the group coordinator. A bit of a pathological case, I grant you, but I took due note.

The picture could of course have changed, but I've seen no evidence of significant work in that area.


Thanks for the additional detail. As you say, things could have changed, and a small change to the routing logic would not necessarily be obvious without specific testing.

Just for completeness, the radio is still enabled in the Sub in the thread I mentioned. And, introducing the inter-speaker cable continues to prevent the (Line-In, Uncompressed) dropouts I was experiencing.

Reply