Reduce idle consumption energy level (currently around 5W)

The problem with this thread is that everyone is starting from the incorrect assumption that a player that is not actively playing music does not need to consume power or only needs enough to be able to be awakened when it is called on to play again. This is completely 
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.

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'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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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. 

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. 
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.