I thought I would like to share my thoughts on why I would never recommend
Sonos to my friends. After having given it some thought, in my opinion, the whole
concept behind Sonos is basically flawed.
First off, a little about my current Sonos situation. Today I have, and enjoy, a
fully working Sonos system with multiple devices spread across several rooms.
The system is stable, because at some point I decided to cable everything.
The majority of my past Sonos problems could all be related to wireless instability.
Here is why the concept behind Sonos, in my opinion, is basically flawed.
Sonos is sold as a speaker system with flexibility and ease of use as part of its core values.
The idea is simple. The speakers look good, and can easily be moved around
your home in various wireless configurations. I dont doubt that for many users,
this is in fact reality (eventhough the speakers are probably rarely moved around).
However, if you inspect the troubleshooting section of the community, you will see that
many Sonos users are having trouble with the wireless stability of their systems.
The answer from Sonos support is almost always the same - "Your wireless network
is not good enough.. you need to improve or otherwise change it". The user is left
confused, because most often the wireless network is performing sufficiently in all other respects.
Somehow the Sonos system is introduced as the weakest link on your wireless network.
There may be plausible technical reasons for this, but how was the user supposed to know?
And worse: The user has no way of knowing upfront, if this will be an issue on your network.
You may end up lucky, or not, it is a flip of the coin.
The weaksest link in your upcoming Sonos environment, will be the one factor
for which Sonos cant take responsibility - and for which you can never be sure to
fullfill the requirements.
To me this proofs that the whole concept behind Sonos is flawed.
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 2 / 2
Because people were being put off buying Sonos due to the "it's not truly wireless!" claims and competitors advertising with "no bridge required", they were forced to implement the Wifi mode, and with that expose the user experience to the unpredictive nature of the users home Wifi.
Good point; WiFi mode was a marketing tick the box to address this issue. Wiring one Sonos unit to the router is still the only way to go for stable performance where more than one/two zones are involved. Even where this unit needs to be a Boost, the per day cost of it over a 5 plus year useful life is peanuts compared to what it delivers.
And the other thing that needs doing for stable performance doesn't involve any cost - reserving IP addresses in the router for all Sonos units including controller hosting devices.
Userlevel 1
+2
[quote=Kumar]
And the other thing that needs doing for stable performance doesn't involve any cost - reserving IP addresses in the router for all Sonos units including controller hosting devices.
Yes. And my system over 3 floors in an old, stone house (v bad for wireless) is now rock-solid, having had so much input here from the community. Changing channels, using SonosNet, buying a Boost and reserving IP addresses has stabilised everything. But having to go into the router to reserve IP addresses or change wireless channels is not what most users will want to do (but totally worth it). Another advantage of having the phone controllers use SonosNet is that phone wifi coverage is so much better all over the house! No dead spots.
And the other thing that needs doing for stable performance doesn't involve any cost - reserving IP addresses in the router for all Sonos units including controller hosting devices.
Yes. And my system over 3 floors in an old, stone house (v bad for wireless) is now rock-solid, having had so much input here from the community. Changing channels, using SonosNet, buying a Boost and reserving IP addresses has stabilised everything. But having to go into the router to reserve IP addresses or change wireless channels is not what most users will want to do (but totally worth it). Another advantage of having the phone controllers use SonosNet is that phone wifi coverage is so much better all over the house! No dead spots.
However: in parallel I also use Echo/Dots around the house, some that are wired to the line in sockets on Sonos. While none of them play in stereo paired mode, or in grouped mode except on rare occasions, I find music play from them to be just as stable with nothing wired to the router, nor any IP reservation done for the units.
Whether this indicates a technology edge that has been eked out by Amazon over Sonos isn't something I have an answer for. I would not use any such progress if made by Amazon to say that the Sonos concept is basically flawed seeing that it was first deployed fifteen years ago. But it does indicate that there needs to be less user involvement for Echo to deliver stable music play.
Whether this indicates a technology edge that has been eked out by Amazon over Sonos isn't something I have an answer for. I would not use any such progress if made by Amazon to say that the Sonos concept is basically flawed seeing that it was first deployed fifteen years ago. But it does indicate that there needs to be less user involvement for Echo to deliver stable music play.
Userlevel 7
+20
The evidence suggests that this kind of intervention is only really required in a very small proportion of Sonos installations. There are many millions of Sonos users whose systems work perfectly out of the box, without recourse to this forum or any other form of support.
However, if one does encounter issues, this forum is a fantastic resource, with some very knowledgeable and helpful people willing to give up their time to assist.
All good points from @Sjoop1985, @Kumar and @revdv. I suspect most users don't need to reserve IP addresses (I never have), but if a system is experiencing problems, especially after updates, this can be a useful element in tackling the issues.
It seems to me that when users do have problems with Sonos, a large proportion of them result from using Sonos in ways it wasn't originally designed for, but which Sonos has had to make possible to remain competitive, for example:
1. Using it in fully WiFi mode (particularly where extenders are involved)
2. Playing content stored on a mobile device
3. Using Airplay
4. Using line-in for TV audio
5. Voice control
Even in these examples Sonos works well for most users.
One objection I sometimes hear is 'there is nothing wrong with my network, everything else works fine'. This ignores the fact that a Sonos system does make greater demands on a network than 'standalone' devices. Potentially a large number of Sonos and controller devices have to stay in constant touch. SonosNet does that best.
Edit: good point from @pwt too, but our posts crossed!
It seems to me that when users do have problems with Sonos, a large proportion of them result from using Sonos in ways it wasn't originally designed for, but which Sonos has had to make possible to remain competitive, for example:
1. Using it in fully WiFi mode (particularly where extenders are involved)
2. Playing content stored on a mobile device
3. Using Airplay
4. Using line-in for TV audio
5. Voice control
Even in these examples Sonos works well for most users.
One objection I sometimes hear is 'there is nothing wrong with my network, everything else works fine'. This ignores the fact that a Sonos system does make greater demands on a network than 'standalone' devices. Potentially a large number of Sonos and controller devices have to stay in constant touch. SonosNet does that best.
Edit: good point from @pwt too, but our posts crossed!
[quote=pwt]
The evidence suggests that this kind of intervention is only really required in a very small proportion of Sonos installations. There are many millions of Sonos users whose systems work perfectly out of the box, without recourse to this forum or any other form of support.
I am aware of the hospital syndrome, but I am under the impression that not reserving IP addresses is something that will inevitably trip up a Sonos installation - sooner or later - as it goes through its frequent upgrades. Is that not the case? Is it that many who do not do this cope by the power down method used for even computers when things hang?
The other question I have is that in relying on Sonosnet for most stable performance, is Sonos giving up leveraging the improvements in home WiFi tech over the last 10-15 years? It would seem that kit like Echo that offers no such option, is more stable these days than it would have been a decade ago if launched on a foundation of home WiFi tech then prevalent.
The evidence suggests that this kind of intervention is only really required in a very small proportion of Sonos installations. There are many millions of Sonos users whose systems work perfectly out of the box, without recourse to this forum or any other form of support.
I am aware of the hospital syndrome, but I am under the impression that not reserving IP addresses is something that will inevitably trip up a Sonos installation - sooner or later - as it goes through its frequent upgrades. Is that not the case? Is it that many who do not do this cope by the power down method used for even computers when things hang?
The other question I have is that in relying on Sonosnet for most stable performance, is Sonos giving up leveraging the improvements in home WiFi tech over the last 10-15 years? It would seem that kit like Echo that offers no such option, is more stable these days than it would have been a decade ago if launched on a foundation of home WiFi tech then prevalent.
A couple of points about IP reservation. These days a number of routers don't simply allocate IP addresses sequentially; they hash the MAC address into the available pool, which tends to result in a device always getting the same IP. (In the event of a hash collision the router would pick the next available IP.) This results in a kind of 'reservation by default', though it's not as guaranteed as a fixed MAC-IP mapping.
Where IP conflicts do occur, for most devices which simply talk to the outside world it's rather a case of "the internet's slow today". A day later the IP leases have renewed, the conflict's been purged, and the problem is forgotten. Sonos however is more sensitive to IP duplication because the local devices are remorselessly talking to one another, as well as to the controllers. Packet loss due to IP conflict is therefore much more significant. In groups latency is critical for sync, so re-transmission may result in dropouts. And for those who want their music systems to be dependable and instant-on, waiting for a little local network difficulty to clear on its own is all too much.
Where IP conflicts do occur, for most devices which simply talk to the outside world it's rather a case of "the internet's slow today". A day later the IP leases have renewed, the conflict's been purged, and the problem is forgotten. Sonos however is more sensitive to IP duplication because the local devices are remorselessly talking to one another, as well as to the controllers. Packet loss due to IP conflict is therefore much more significant. In groups latency is critical for sync, so re-transmission may result in dropouts. And for those who want their music systems to be dependable and instant-on, waiting for a little local network difficulty to clear on its own is all too much.
To the earlier point I made, I find Echo response, even in grouped mode, to be good enough for a music system as described above. Is this achieved without the kind of "remorseless" talking to each other where Sonos is concerned? And if so, making Echo less vulnerable to such issues and therefore needing less user involvement? And if yes, I would call that tech progress made by Amazon - which is also to be expected given the time gap between the two product lines, which is huge given the nature of the tech.
Userlevel 7
+20
Isn't it the case that most routers will repeatedly hand out the same IP address to the same MAC address, provided the lease hasn't expired or been explicitly released? (Subject to the router not having been restarted.)
Isn't it the case that most routers will repeatedly hand out the same IP address to the same MAC address, provided the lease hasn't expired or been explicitly released? (Subject to the router not having been restarted.)
Userlevel 7
+20
What happens in the case of a Sonos player rebooting (e.g., during an update)? Does it relinquish its lease prior to shutdown? Does it record its IP address for use in the DHCP request on restart?
What happens in the case of a Sonos player rebooting (e.g., during an update)? Does it relinquish its lease prior to shutdown? Does it record its IP address for use in the DHCP request on restart?
I've no idea whether it sends a DHCP Release. And one assumes that it has to follow the standard Offer/Request on reboot. I somehow doubt it caches its original IP to use in the Discover. I've never sniffed that exchange.
Is this not also a part of the answer to your other question?
Does Sonos have to forego some innovation in their system to cater for backwards compatibility to older devices, whereas Amazon is working with devices that are relatively recent compared to Sonos?
Does Sonos have to forego some innovation in their system to cater for backwards compatibility to older devices, whereas Amazon is working with devices that are relatively recent compared to Sonos?
Good point/question. And one that will become a larger issue for Sonos as there is more tech progress in areas such as advanced voice control and other smart home stuff. I am glad I don't have to make those decisions for Sonos about managing the two pulls in opposite directions!
And for Amazon, because their devices are a significantly lower price point, there is less of a user investment to care about in releasing new kit.
They have already been forced to start differentiating featurelevels between older and newer devices, like with Airplay 2 support, something, as far as I know, they hadn't done up to that point. At some time they will have no choice but to deprecate something more significant than a controller.
While I understand the outrage at "bricking" a device for the sake of "the ecosystem" tomorrow that is functioning perfectly well today, you could ask if it is really that big of a deal, in this day and age. Try to use a phone or a computer from 2005, you will find it as effective as a brick as well. A lot of people seem to have no issue shelling out ever increasing amounts for a phone every 2 or 3 years, even if their old phone still works fine, so why would it be an issue if a Sonos device gets bricked?
Somewhat off-topic maybe, but something to think about when contemplating the merits of the concept that is Sonos, especially on the point of the wireless technology it employs and the evolution thereof.
In regards to the performance of echos in multi-room speaker situations, I think the content it's capable of playing is also a big factor. Echos can only play streaming audio. The do multiroom audio from any other source. Echos have bluetooth yes, but when you use them as a bluetooth speaker, the bluetooth source cannot be shared with other echos. Likewise, their new Echo links have line in connections, but again, it cannot be shared wirelessly.
Of course, Sonos has supported sharing of line in sources from the very beginning, not to mention local libraries. In my limited understanding, this means that Sonos cannot 'afford' to have a large buffer, while echos can buffer to the limit of their on board memory essentially. They can afford to get ahead of the stream so to speak, possibly even to the next scheduled track if need be. Other speakers in the network can likewise get ahead. Sonos doesn't have the same luxury as their devices can't get advanced audio data from a line in source.
And I'm not a network or even really much of a hardware guy, but that's the obvious difference I see. Maybe echos aren't taking of advantage of their ability to buffer content, but I would guess that they do. It would certainly allow them to hide any temporary interference in the network.
And I think Sonos could possibly take advantage of using a larger buffer when the source is streaming. However, their older units probably don't have the memory to do this as effectively, so coding logic would have to consider not only the source, but the units involved in the group currently....which can change on the fly. It could also be that the existing API between Sonos and streaming sources isn't built to handling streaming with a larger buffer, not sure on that. All of this potential changes which would really only a small percentage of customers in some situations.
One other thing worth noting, as I hinted at above, Sonos allows you to regroup speakers on the fly, while echos do not. You cannot add or remove echos from a group once you've initiated streaming. I'd imagine echos are like that because it wasn't considered a high priority feature, and complicated buffering/syncing.
I actually both echos and sonos speakers can be the right choice depending on your needs. If you only want to stream audio, don't care as much about speaker quality, and are unsure about the quality of your network, echos is probably the better choice. Sonos is the better choice for others.
Of course, Sonos has supported sharing of line in sources from the very beginning, not to mention local libraries. In my limited understanding, this means that Sonos cannot 'afford' to have a large buffer, while echos can buffer to the limit of their on board memory essentially. They can afford to get ahead of the stream so to speak, possibly even to the next scheduled track if need be. Other speakers in the network can likewise get ahead. Sonos doesn't have the same luxury as their devices can't get advanced audio data from a line in source.
And I'm not a network or even really much of a hardware guy, but that's the obvious difference I see. Maybe echos aren't taking of advantage of their ability to buffer content, but I would guess that they do. It would certainly allow them to hide any temporary interference in the network.
And I think Sonos could possibly take advantage of using a larger buffer when the source is streaming. However, their older units probably don't have the memory to do this as effectively, so coding logic would have to consider not only the source, but the units involved in the group currently....which can change on the fly. It could also be that the existing API between Sonos and streaming sources isn't built to handling streaming with a larger buffer, not sure on that. All of this potential changes which would really only a small percentage of customers in some situations.
One other thing worth noting, as I hinted at above, Sonos allows you to regroup speakers on the fly, while echos do not. You cannot add or remove echos from a group once you've initiated streaming. I'd imagine echos are like that because it wasn't considered a high priority feature, and complicated buffering/syncing.
I actually both echos and sonos speakers can be the right choice depending on your needs. If you only want to stream audio, don't care as much about speaker quality, and are unsure about the quality of your network, echos is probably the better choice. Sonos is the better choice for others.
People are not fooled by such obvious trolling.
People are not fooled by such obvious trolling.
Heeeey! I’ve successfully awaken the trolling Sonos Fanboy Ogre from under the Sonos Forum bridge! Woohoo!
Sonos Admins take note: “These” are your acting brand ambassadors...
If you decided to read the post “properly” rather than joining the bandwagon of Sonos Fanboys, who jump at the first sign of an “attack” on the Sonos brand - I wrote the Play:1 worked flawlessly for two years (purchased 2017) which means as of 2019 it has ceased to work properly. Not “after all those many many years.”
Scrub off those soda glasses.
Sonos support will disavow any community advise relating to Static IPs or other complex IT solutions, and only stand behind their product’s performance in a vacuum. Integrate Headphones, a Bluetooth/Wifi audio receiver from a different manufacturer, employ Airplay2 with older Sonos Speakers so that Airplay2 works throughout the house? You are on your own, and the simplicity of the system that attracted you to it vanishes, replaced by conflicting community support that Sonos themselves disavows. Ironic that technological advances like Sonos are accompanied by such real-life incompatibilities that are not addressed properly by the company selling itself to the masses.
Page 2 / 2
Enter your username or e-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.