Reduce idle consumption energy level (currently around 5W)
Sonos devices on average consume about 5 watts each if idle. Having 5 sonos devices around this means 25 watts on average idle consumption. Over a year this is about (25x24hx365) 219 kwh. In Germany where 1 kwh is about 0,30 Euro Cent this then means about 70 Euro (about 100$) just to maintain an idle system. This is just too much and could easily be reduced. Looking at the environmental aspect this gets even more critical: There are around 2.5 million Sonos devices around. This adds up to 110,000,000 kwh or 110 million kwh.
This topic has been closed for further comments. You can use the search bar to find a similar topic, or create a new one by clicking Create Topic at the top of the page.
Page 3 / 5
Other competitors will catch up with Sonos by offering a similar platform and product catalogue. This will likely happen soon.
When these competitors catch up, they will implement the current standard industry practice of implementing low-power mesh networking when audio is not called for. (See http://support.apple.com/de-de/HT201960. Apple MacBooks, as a side note, often reduce processor power between keystrokes.)
If Sonos hasn't joined the rest of them, by investing roughly $1 more per unit to save us $4 per year per unit ($0.10/kWh rate), Sonos will look like the old guard and you'll only find them at Target and eBay. I'll be concerned that I've invested in Sonos' platform.
Smart companies recognize this as a brand value issue, if not also one of social responsibility.
When these competitors catch up, they will implement the current standard industry practice of implementing low-power mesh networking when audio is not called for. (See http://support.apple.com/de-de/HT201960. Apple MacBooks, as a side note, often reduce processor power between keystrokes.)
If Sonos hasn't joined the rest of them, by investing roughly $1 more per unit to save us $4 per year per unit ($0.10/kWh rate), Sonos will look like the old guard and you'll only find them at Target and eBay. I'll be concerned that I've invested in Sonos' platform.
Smart companies recognize this as a brand value issue, if not also one of social responsibility.
An on/off button would only help some. My twelwe SONOS are all wall mounted in 2½-3 meters height, plus they are all with cut off cords, hidden and plugged directly into lamp sockets just behind the speakers - just as it should be.
Exactly
I instead regret the choice because I don't like the sound quality, but also realized that finding an alternative is not easy.
I really hoped to replace my Sonos speakers with the new Bose SoundTouch II line and ordered the flagship 30 just recently for a test, but instantly returned it... far better sound quality than my Play:5s, loved the remote and display, but overall barely usable (c'mon Bose, Spotify Connect only, are you kidding?) and I also missed the stereo pair... not mature yet.
I was thinking to replace my Play:N speakers with Sonos Connect devices and quality speakers, but I found the price total nonsense... how can a Connect be priced higher than a Play:1?
I really hoped to replace my Sonos speakers with the new Bose SoundTouch II line and ordered the flagship 30 just recently for a test, but instantly returned it... far better sound quality than my Play:5s, loved the remote and display, but overall barely usable (c'mon Bose, Spotify Connect only, are you kidding?) and I also missed the stereo pair... not mature yet.
I was thinking to replace my Play:N speakers with Sonos Connect devices and quality speakers, but I found the price total nonsense... how can a Connect be priced higher than a Play:1?
Userlevel 2
It's not painful to add power switches, then. That's what I do with mine, I'm not bothered by the boot time, only by having to reconfigure everything each time.I must admit for me it turned out to be painful. I installed radio-controlled plugs for my Sonos devices but only used them for two weeks or so. After that I considered the loss of convenience higher than the loss of money due to idle consumption (though being located in Germany with very high energy prices of 25-30 ct/kWh). It's one of the fantastic features of Sonos that you can switch your music on from everywhere in your house by just taking your mobile out of your pocket. And it starts immediately. You don't have to look for a remote-control, you don't have to stand up or to wait, you can resume listening exactly were paused earlier...
Hence I'd definitely appreciate less idle consumption by the Sonos players. A solution should however not undermine the particular character of the system.
And, honestly said, I was aware of the consumption when I bought my players. And I'd presume most of us were. At least here in Germany it is merely not possible to inform yourself about Sonos on the web without being pointed to that issue by recessions, blogs etc. Thus, it's your choice like it was mine. And I do not regret it.
Agree. Any comment aiming to keep status quo is irrelevant by default.
Honestly, I feel it would be easier if Sonos could provide a way of reminding the previous status before shutdown, allowing those 20 secs to be even less annoying.
It's not painful to add power switches, then. That's what I do with mine, I'm not bothered by the boot time, only by having to reconfigure everything each time.
Nobody should have stand-by devices, regardless of consumption, it's a matter of security.
Honestly, I feel it would be easier if Sonos could provide a way of reminding the previous status before shutdown, allowing those 20 secs to be even less annoying.
It's not painful to add power switches, then. That's what I do with mine, I'm not bothered by the boot time, only by having to reconfigure everything each time.
Nobody should have stand-by devices, regardless of consumption, it's a matter of security.
Off cource the sleep mode would be optional, so your comment is irrelevant.
Your opinion makes sense if ypu have a couple of speakers, but I have twelve speakers, and I've calculated yearly standby expence of aprox 200 Euro for these SONOS alone. That's totally ridiculous.
Your opinion makes sense if ypu have a couple of speakers, but I have twelve speakers, and I've calculated yearly standby expence of aprox 200 Euro for these SONOS alone. That's totally ridiculous.
Count me as one who would not accept waiting 20 seconds. I'd rather pay for the extra electricity.
The SONOS power consumption is totally crazy and certainly not in fasion. This goes for the environmental and the cost aspects both. I have twelwe SONOS speakers in my home so far, including four of the really thirsty Play:5. None can be switced off by me manually when not in use, since they are all wall mounted - and also, that is not intended by SONOS. I eagerly expect a solution with a real sleep mode. SONOS seems so proud of the at-once ready to play ... but honestly, who cares? Waiting for instance twenty seconds would be totally ok if we could get rid of the actual power consumption craziness. Fixing this can only go to slow. And it should include existing SONOS speakers - hence be a software update-based solution.
(Along with Ed, above) I encourage Sonos and Sonos users to look at Apple TV as an example of an always-ready, WiFi multimedia device that uses less than 1W in standby mode. There's no reason my Sonos Connect should use 5-6 Watts in standby mode (I measured using a Kill-a-Watt power meter. My Play:1 also uses 5-6 Watts after being idle 3 minutes, which is more than the 3.4 Watts published by Sonos) https://www.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/AppleTV_Product_Environmental_Report_2012.pdf
The Median number of rooms in a U.S. home is 4 to 6. Five Sonos devices running 5 Watts for 20hrs/day would use roughly 200 kWh per year. At $0.10/kWh, that's $20 a year. NRDC published a related report on the hidden costs to consumers, public health, and the environment of always-on device architecture, called "Lowering the Cost of Play." http://www.nrdc.org/energy/game-consoles/lowering-the-cost-of-play.asp
Certainly, any given user has a choice whether they care about standby power use. But, when the costs are hidden and the manufacturer fails to make simple choices to be more efficient, we all pay the price by more fossil-fueled power plants running around the clock to fuel "energy-stupid" devices.
In my case, everything is on Wired Ethernet, so actually I'd love to be able to turn off the Wifi to save that power all the time, and as noted above, simple WoL would let the unit stay in sleep most of the time. Even in the mesh case, wake on wireless would let the units mostly be asleep when not in use, and wake up to create the mesh if needed to play something. For me and I suspect most people, most of the time I'm not playing anything.
(Along with Ed, above) I encourage Sonos and Sonos users to look at Apple TV as an example of an always-ready, WiFi multimedia device that uses less than 1W in standby mode. There's no reason my Sonos Connect should use 5-6 Watts in standby mode (I measured using a Kill-a-Watt power meter. My Play:1 also uses 5-6 Watts after being idle 3 minutes, which is more than the 3.4 Watts published by Sonos) https://www.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/AppleTV_Product_Environmental_Report_2012.pdf
The Median number of rooms in a U.S. home is 4 to 6. Five Sonos devices running 5 Watts for 20hrs/day would use roughly 200 kWh per year. At $0.10/kWh, that's $20 a year. NRDC published a related report on the hidden costs to consumers, public health, and the environment of always-on device architecture, called "Lowering the Cost of Play." http://www.nrdc.org/energy/game-consoles/lowering-the-cost-of-play.asp
Certainly, any given user has a choice whether they care about standby power use. But, when the costs are hidden and the manufacturer fails to make simple choices to be more efficient, we all pay the price by more fossil-fueled power plants running around the clock to fuel "energy-stupid" devices.
No, I put a comma after "always-ready" in that phrase. I can't run while I'm asleep, but I can be woken from sleep by a smoke alarm and run out of the house in a reasonable amount of time.
In brief, good networks shut down all but one WiFi transceiver in the network (questionable whether that is even necessary in Sonos' case) and rely instead on low-power communication for mesh networking (such as those that employ ZigBee specs) to maintain awareness in a sleep or standby mode.
Apple knows that it doesn't make sense to maintain a WiFi mesh network when a high data rate is not needed. They've been using wake-over-wireless technology for years because it's cheap (ball park of $1 per unit?) and makes technical sense and they want to compete well with smart companies.
(Along with Ed, above) I encourage Sonos and Sonos users to look at Apple TV as an example of an always-ready, WiFi multimedia device that uses less than 1W in standby mode. There's no reason my Sonos Connect should use 5-6 Watts in standby mode (I measured using a Kill-a-Watt power meter. My Play:1 also uses 5-6 Watts after being idle 3 minutes, which is more than the 3.4 Watts published by Sonos) https://www.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/AppleTV_Product_Environmental_Report_2012.pdf
The Median number of rooms in a U.S. home is 4 to 6. Five Sonos devices running 5 Watts for 20hrs/day would use roughly 200 kWh per year. At $0.10/kWh, that's $20 a year. NRDC published a related report on the hidden costs to consumers, public health, and the environment of always-on device architecture, called "Lowering the Cost of Play." http://www.nrdc.org/energy/game-consoles/lowering-the-cost-of-play.asp
Certainly, any given user has a choice whether they care about standby power use. But, when the costs are hidden and the manufacturer fails to make simple choices to be more efficient, we all pay the price by more fossil-fueled power plants running around the clock to fuel "energy-stupid" devices.
I think the flaw here is the definition of "always-ready" WiFi. Sonos devices do not sit idle waiting to be activated but are actually actively working to maintain the wireless mesh at full power to ensure sonosnet traffic is routed even when that particular player is not playing music. Unlike an AppleTV box which truly does nothing useful when in standby mode, a Sonos device operates more like a Wireless Access Point and needs the radio section to remain fully powered. The fact that the audio amplifiers are shut down when not playing seems a very reasonable energy compromise in line with true nature of the device.
This is a significant issue because Sonos and other manufacturers have low-cost options to enable a very low-power standby mode that meet all requirements for home area networking and user experience of a wireless, multi-room home audio system.
(Along with Ed, above) I encourage Sonos and Sonos users to look at Apple TV as an example of an always-ready, WiFi multimedia device that uses less than 1W in standby mode. There's no reason my Sonos Connect should use 5-6 Watts in standby mode (I measured using a Kill-a-Watt power meter. My Play:1 also uses 5-6 Watts after being idle 3 minutes, which is more than the 3.4 Watts published by Sonos) https://www.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/AppleTV_Product_Environmental_Report_2012.pdf
The Median number of rooms in a U.S. home is 4 to 6. Five Sonos devices running 5 Watts for 20hrs/day would use roughly 200 kWh per year. At $0.10/kWh, that's $20 a year. NRDC published a related report on the hidden costs to consumers, public health, and the environment of always-on device architecture, called "Lowering the Cost of Play." http://www.nrdc.org/energy/game-consoles/lowering-the-cost-of-play.asp
Certainly, any given user has a choice whether they care about standby power use. But, when the costs are hidden and the manufacturer fails to make simple choices to be more efficient, we all pay the price by more fossil-fueled power plants running around the clock to fuel "energy-stupid" devices.
(Along with Ed, above) I encourage Sonos and Sonos users to look at Apple TV as an example of an always-ready, WiFi multimedia device that uses less than 1W in standby mode. There's no reason my Sonos Connect should use 5-6 Watts in standby mode (I measured using a Kill-a-Watt power meter. My Play:1 also uses 5-6 Watts after being idle 3 minutes, which is more than the 3.4 Watts published by Sonos) https://www.apple.com/environment/reports/docs/AppleTV_Product_Environmental_Report_2012.pdf
The Median number of rooms in a U.S. home is 4 to 6. Five Sonos devices running 5 Watts for 20hrs/day would use roughly 200 kWh per year. At $0.10/kWh, that's $20 a year. NRDC published a related report on the hidden costs to consumers, public health, and the environment of always-on device architecture, called "Lowering the Cost of Play." http://www.nrdc.org/energy/game-consoles/lowering-the-cost-of-play.asp
Certainly, any given user has a choice whether they care about standby power use. But, when the costs are hidden and the manufacturer fails to make simple choices to be more efficient, we all pay the price by more fossil-fueled power plants running around the clock to fuel "energy-stupid" devices.
At least for those who use only one Sonos product, it would be great to have some sort of deeper standby mode. And finding some sort of solution for those with several speakers would also be nice. The mode(s) could be optional and not activated by default, so that only users actively enabling the mode(s) would have it and could be informed about possible related issues.
Thanks to the Sonos team for reading.
Whether one room or multiple rooms, it is absolutely possible to implement sleep/WiFi wake-up at less than 1W or so. There are products out there that already do this (the newer versions of Apple TV for instance). As has been noted it takes effort to do this, but what it really takes is that concern about the environment become part of the corporate mantra. Executive Management needs to set audacious goals for engineering to achieve. As to energy usage, I own a total of about 20 Connect:Amps so that's 100W constant load and 2.4WH every day, or about $1/day, or $365/year. I could easily automate turning power on to the Connects when I run the app, if the App included the ability to add automation commands (in my case insteon). But basically the ability to send HTML request(s) would suffice whenever the App starts up, followed by the ability to pause perhaps.
At least for those who use only one Sonos product, it would be great to have some sort of deeper standby mode. And finding some sort of solution for those with several speakers would also be nice. The mode(s) could be optional and not activated by default, so that only users actively enabling the mode(s) would have it and could be informed about possible related issues.
Thanks to the Sonos team for reading.
Alternatively the units could have a setting for user choice to reduce the power, as I'd accept it might take a few seconds to power up when I want it to. Many devices manage to have succcessful communications strategy without burning 4W continuously 24x7.
This is a deal breaker indeed.
At least for those who use only one Sonos product, it would be great to have some sort of deeper standby mode. And finding some sort of solution for those with several speakers would also be nice. The mode(s) could be optional and not activated by default, so that only users actively enabling the mode(s) would have it and could be informed about possible related issues.
Thanks to the Sonos team for reading.
Well there you have it. You solved the problem for those with only one sonos device. As the controllers are not anymore sold we can ignore the fact that you need a seperate controller because the mobile phone or pcs will do the job which are wired into your network anyway. Therefore the sonos device should be smart enough to identify that no further wireless sonos device needs to be connected and will ppwer down the wireless part. In case you add a new sonos device, you anyway need to pair them by pressing the buttons on the devices. This will reactivate the wireless part and allow for sync. From that point on the wireless can remain on on both devices as we now need the machines to by synced.
Userlevel 2
At least for those who use only one Sonos product, it would be great to have some sort of deeper standby mode. And finding some sort of solution for those with several speakers would also be nice. The mode(s) could be optional and not activated by default, so that only users actively enabling the mode(s) would have it and could be informed about possible related issues.
Thanks to the Sonos team for reading.
Multi-room support is just one application. Sonos was designed for various setups, including the ability to have a wireless hi-fi system that will stream your content. In fact, at its origin, Sonos' offering was more of a standalone. It's certainly great that it has evolved.
That said, I do get your point, and it's a good one.
While the amount of power consumed may indeed be the minimum required to maintain those connections, innovative companies manage to find ways to do things that set new standards all the time--but they sometimes need to be reminded to do so. Being an innovative company, perhaps Sonos could do that here.
At least for those who use only one Sonos product, it would be great to have some sort of deeper standby mode. And finding some sort of solution for those with several speakers would also be nice. The mode(s) could be optional and not activated by default, so that only users actively enabling the mode(s) would have it and could be informed about possible related issues.
Thanks to the Sonos team for reading.
I can't help but feel that people who have only one Sonos device are missing the point of the product. It was designed from the ground up to wirelessly sync music in multiple rooms and distribute the index of your local music library amongst all Sonos devices. In order to do that properly and maintain the dedicated wireless mesh communication between players and CR100/200 controllers, the units need to be on all the time. Only the amplifier section can be said to ever be idle and those electronics do in fact go into power saving mode.
Sonos is using the minimum amount of power required to do what it is designed to do and I can't see them crippling functionality to accommodate criteria that falls outside of its intended purpose.
Userlevel 2
I'd like to echo the concerns expressed in this thread. Not only would some sort of sleep/off mode be environmentally-friendly, it would also be another area in which Sonos could be on the cutting edge.
At least for those who use only one Sonos product, it would be great to have some sort of deeper standby mode. And finding some sort of solution for those with several speakers would also be nice. The mode(s) could be optional and not activated by default, so that only users actively enabling the mode(s) would have it and could be informed about possible related issues.
Thanks to the Sonos team for reading.
At least for those who use only one Sonos product, it would be great to have some sort of deeper standby mode. And finding some sort of solution for those with several speakers would also be nice. The mode(s) could be optional and not activated by default, so that only users actively enabling the mode(s) would have it and could be informed about possible related issues.
Thanks to the Sonos team for reading.
I use cheap remote control power adapters available from the local D.I.Y. store, three in a box with a small four channel controller, I set all three to the same channel button for the two speakers and a bridge. Just use one button for on and off.
I took another customer's advice and bought remote sockets for each of my six players. I fire them up and wait the 30 seconds it takes to start the music. I power them down when I'm done listening. Been doing this for four months and no problems. Aside from the power consumption, I don't want to listen to the humming sound they make when powered and not playing.
It is time to admit that the power reduction seen when the amplifier section goes into to idle is the correct level of power savings for a full-time wireless network device of this type and if people are claiming that they don't use the wireless mesh in their system then the wasted energy is the result of them choosing the wrong product for their application and not from any defect in the product design.
however much I like the kit I also agree that I may have bought the wrong product as other similar systems do nit have the same issue.
I agree
Userlevel 2
To be honest: I somehow agree and disagree with both postings above.
I think anyone who is willing to buy a Sonos system should be aware of the interaction between the players and the SonosNet system - and it's obvious that such system requires more power than a pure stand-by mode of a stand-alone player. At least I was aware of that and the related power consumption before buying my Sonos players (and in the meantime I have 2 Play:5, 3 Play:3, 1 Play:1 and a SUB).
On the other hand I could imagine that a timer to define a time interval where all players fall asleep and wake up automatically afterwards would be in line with the Sonos concept and could reduce power consumption significantly.
I disagree.
I for one do not have my system playing 24/7, so they do not need to be actively keeping the mesh at full power.
No reason for them not to go into a low power listening mode and then activate when the mesh is needed.
Sonos provide ethernet connections which can be used, but still no way of turning off the wireless, so the system is capable of running WITHOUT wireless (if it could be shut off easily).
You see many systems capable of lowering their wireless power output when not needed. So why not Sonos?
Why have my system on when the place is empty? Shops use sonos and are not open 24/7.
People DO like to turn off wireless at set times. I personally sleep better with wireless off. Maybe it makes no difference to you, however I can easily switch off the wireless on my router at set times. In addition I have other items which switch off using internal timers. Do keep the RTC and processor in a low powered state to then restart the system later on requires practically no power.
So respectfully, I believe there IS a very valid requirement for low power and that people have NOT chosen the wrong product.
Page 3 / 5
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.