It is really up to your usage style. Several years ago, I upgraded to a BOOST, because I didn’t have a speaker in easy reach of my router to attach with an Ethernet cable. But if you do, wiring a speaker is equally valid as just going to a full wireless set up. 

Thanks. I think you gave me the information I need. I was planning to not replace a Play 5 Gen 1 that is by my router, but from what you're saying it may make sense to buy a One for not that much more than a Boost. Does this make sense? Thanks! 

It does to me, which may or may not be useful . You end up with not only a BOOST device, but an additional speaker. 

You could just wire your Play 5 to the router instead of the Bridge, then no need for the Boost.

A Sonos One is a good option but you can save a bit with a Sonos One SL without the voice features if you don’t use them.

Also look at the two room sets if you trade up your Play 5, you get the 30% off the set instead of just one speaker. 

Wait till May for the needed clarity on all the ramifications of this latest Sonos controversy.

Same question more or less as the OP. I have a whole-house set-up consisting of a bunch of Play:1’s and Play:3’s plus a Playbar and Sub. All bought about 5 years ago or so. (Am feeling quietly relieved that I didn’t buy Play:5’s over the Play:3’s which I *very* nearly did at the time).

The whole lot is connected via a Bridge which I gather is going eol in May after which time it will, all on it’s own, effectively sabotage my entire set-up by preventing any of my speakers from being updated!

The Bridge has to go!

I’ve just ordered a Boost (30% discount code from December still working). But do I really need it? My Playbar is sat on a TV cabinet that contains my WiFi router. I can easily connect it to the router via an ethernet cable.

Will the “router to speaker via ethernet cable” approach genuinely give a similar Sonosnet performance to the Boost???? If so I’ll cancel the order. If there’s any significant benefit from the Boost I’ll keep it. I read somewhere that the wireless transmission of Playbar, Play:1 and Play:3 is ‘older tech’ which is inferior to the more modern Boost (and indeed the One, Playbase, Beam and 2nd gen 5).

Any advice appreciated.

Btw I consider this saga to be an early warning for my trusty Play:1’s and 3’s 

#stilllovesonos #knewthisdaywouldhavetocome #happyit’sonlythebridgeforme #stillsucks.

.

The Bridge or Boost are primarily intended for situations where you can’t wire another Sonos (Sub and surrounds don’t matter) to Ethernet and don’t want to use your home WiFi to carry the music.

The Boost would give you SonosNet v2 as compared to the Bridge but your PlayBar might too, I can’t find the version it provides mentioned in the specs. 

Many thanks. I’ll stick with the Boost, although it would be handy to know if the PlayBar does support SonosNet v2 if you do find out for sure. At least I can use the Boost as an extender elsewhere.

Without being a Sonos employee to know for sure, I’d suggest that the PLAYBASE, having come after the BOOST, absolutely supports SonosNet 2.0. 

Sorry - my bad. I meant PlayBar (I don’t have the PlayBase)

That’s a whole different question. The PLAYBAR came out a year earlier than the BOOST, but it’s entirely possible that there’s enough CPU/memory in it to run SonosNet 2.0. I’ve got two of them, both connected to a BOOST, both work without issue. 95% of their use is while hardwired to the the TV set, so that usage has no interface with the BOOST at all, but they also work perfectly when I’m streaming music to them. 

I’m not finding a definitive answer, I really want to say that v1 was only on the early ZPs and Bridge but I just can’t find it documented.

To do v2 the device needs WiFi N mode and MIMO as far as I could see.

That tickles in my mind as true as well, but I think I read that on a post from someone else.