Skip to main content
Contributor I
February 4, 2018

SONOS Vs Bluesound.... we have a winner!

In the knowledge that I was moving with my family to a new larger property, I have been preparing/researching/saving for several items of audio and AV equipment. One absolute must was a multi-room wireless system. We still have traditional stereo in our office/guest room, and the main system in our 'Snug' has a great stereo and 5.1 system. But, the heart of the house, the kitchen diner, needs music to be readily available, and this means intuitive above sound quality so that my wife actually plays music.

Cutting to the chase, I borrowed, one at a time, to demo in situ, a Bluesound Pulse Mini, a Play:3, a Bluesound Pulse and finally (playing as I type) a Play:5. I'd done a lot of reading, and spoken to staff at the shops, and was in no doubt that I would prefer the 'audiophile' sound of the Bluesound, and that the ability to play my high-res files (I have a Pono and a Pioneer N-50 network player) would be the clincher. The only possible thing that might gain some points for the SONOS products was functionality.

How wrong I was! I instantly disliked the sound of the Pulse Mini, it deals well with instrumental music, but is unbearable with vocals. The midrange sounds smothered and discoloured. I tried to like it, occasionally finding tracks that it handled well, but within a fairly short space of time I found it... offensive. I took it back and headed home with the smaller Play:3. I loved it, very neutral, but very competent. It didn't put a foot wrong, dealing with my music files on shuffle without missing a beat. I've never spent so long in a kitchen! I took it back with the intention of taking a Play:5 to try, believing it to be an over zealous, overweight teenager, and probably settling for the Play:3, but instead I took the bigger Pulse home. It faired better than the Mini... marginally, the low and high frequencies are more to the fore, and cover up the tonal oddities of the Bluesound midrange, but not enough. Back to the shop and home with a Play:5... hooked, instantly! Grin inducing sound, muscular bass, but with total control, good at low and high volumes, great clarity, good in vertical or horizontal, not positionally fussy at all, but importantly for my tastes, tonally neutral.

I'm confused by my experiences, as mentioned in other posts, retailers may be influenced by margins etc, but I know the guys at this shop, they genuinely believe the bluesound to sound better, but they said things like "everybody who has listened to both preferred the Bluesound" not actually laying their own opinion on the line.

Anyway, once I have decided which rooms will be getting the SONOS treatment I'll be back on to bore you all with my setup choices

Yours, a SONOS convert (apologies for the length of the post!)
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.

45 replies

February 7, 2018
Lol. Isn't there anything available for USD 6000 that is twice as good?

Seriously though, it would be worth investigating if it was found that Sonos blew the Devialets away. Which isn't to say that this can't be.
chicks
February 7, 2018
The “high end” audiophool mags are never going to review Sonos speakers, but Brent Butterworth, who does fairly objective reviews, compares the neutrality of the Play:1 to $3,000 speakers.

To sum up, the Play:1 measures extremely flat, comparable to what I might usually measure from a very good $3,000/pair tower speaker: ±2.7 dB on-axis, ±2.8 dB averaged across a listening window. To put that in perspective, any speaker with a deviation of ±3.0 dB or less would be considered a pretty well-engineered product.
February 7, 2018
Yes, I know this review. But he hasn't said that the expensive ones sound inferior to the play 1. And if I remember the review, somewhere in it he has lost his nerve and thrown in a sentence or two to protect himself from audiophile ire.
February 7, 2018
Lol. Isn't there anything available for USD 6000 that is twice as good?
from the web site:

This is not a speaker. This is Phantom.

Forget what you think you know. Far more than a connected speaker, plug and play Phantom to trigger an intense emotional experience. Encounter the physical impact of a high-end ultra-dense sound. Instantly. With power, clarity and precision unlike anything you’ve heard before. Revolutionary. Hi-Fi, docks, speakers, home cinema. Wireless, bluetooth, multiroom. Phantom obliterates all existing systems.
Local music library with carefully constructed playlists - no shuffling!, Integration with Homeseer Automation, No touch screen devices, No streaming services, No Apple products ever
February 7, 2018
But since we are talking about USD 3000 speakers, I had compared a play 1 pair to my Harbeth C7 pair in the same room, back in 2014, that cost about that much. And driven by no less than Quad 99/909 amplification. I was shocked to see how little was the difference, although the Harbeths were a little richer in the mid range and did the low frequencies thing noticeably better. But when I added the Sonos Sub to the 1 pair, remaining differences in favour of the Harbeths, while present, were vanishingly small even in absolute terms without assigning weightage to the USD 1000 cost of the Sonos set up versus the USD 5000 cost of the Harbeth+Quad one. It was a no brainer to complete my conversion and move to the land of the sensible, sell the Harbeths/Quads and move on in life. With a much better looking living room as a result of the unexpected bonus.

By the way, the Harbeth user forum, actively moderated by the owner, is a place to visit if you are looking for schizophrenia and fan boyism in full bloom. This forum is a pale shadow of it on the latter aspect. There, objective assessment of audio kit is correctly promoted, all the way to controlled DBTs, along with a very useful knowledge data base about audio in general. But no one can criticise the Harbeth sound and talk of similar controlled DBTs v other speakers is not permitted. I have stopped visiting because of the stifling cultish atmosphere. To his credit, the owner does not hide the fact that the forum is a manufacturer sponsored one, meant to promote sales. But that does not seem to keep enthusiastic owners away.
chicks
February 7, 2018
I’ll take my sound at regular density, thanks.
February 7, 2018
I would prefer to ionise the air in the room to better propagate sound waves.
MikeV
February 7, 2018
Wireless, bluetooth, multiroom. Phantom obliterates all existing systems.

Because Bluetooth is the ultimate in Hi-Fi quality, amiright? 🙂
The S in IOT stands for Security.
ccboth
Contributor II
June 16, 2018
I know I'm late to this thread, but it has been one of the most entertaining reads on the community!
@Rascal6000 Thanks for the story. Well said. Enjoyed the read.
Having just recently set up my Play 5 and SUB in my dining room / living room / kitchen (open concept house), I'm loving every note that is played. Grin inducing for sure! I started with a stereo pair of Play One's in my study that I won from work and was very impressed with them. I did a run to BestBuy one afternoon and bought a bunch of different speakers, set them all up and tested them against eachother and then returned all the ones I didn't like.... all said and done... I have a Sonos home now... and looking to add more. Next on the wish list is another Play 5 for stereo pairing.
"Your imaginary friend"
Contributor I
June 19, 2018
I went through a fairly in depth comparison of Blu vs Sonos as well ... all models in my home setting. It took some time and patience. In the end I settled on Sonos and purchased my first batch of speakers just this week with another batch arriving next week.

It really is a preference thing .. I didn't find enough difference in the sound between the two to sway me - I also have some Bose SoundTouch 30's. Each of the Blu/Sonos/Bose have their own unique sound but also all sound "good" so then I went with functionality and that's where Sonos won me over at this point.

Just my two cents worth ....