Some passive speakers driven by an analogue amplifier with a phono stage. Don’t see why people want to spend lots of money on turntables and connect to something that digitises the sound and then undoes it again to play on a speaker… 

Thanks for the non answer.

If you mean which Sonos speakers I’d lean to a pair of Fives, if you are not satisfied with the low end (you likely will be) add a Sub to them.

If you mean any speakers but powered by the Sonos Amp, well it is really a matter of sonic taste. I’d think a pair of Klipsch, the Hersey in small or La Scalla in medium sizes.

https://www.klipsch.com/products/heresy-iv-floorstanding-speaker

https://www.klipsch.com/products/la-scala-al-5

Thanks for the suggestions!

Please don’t tell your spouse I suggested the La Scallas, mine has not forgiven me for inflicting them on her decor even though they left in 93 or so.

Made great garage speakers until we downsized.

We've had posters who didn't know the Line-In was converted to digital who gushed over the "pure analog" sound of LPs on Sonos that "blows digital streaming away".  When informed that they were actually listening to digital music, they were dumbfounded.  Which they shouldn't be, because digital reproduces the analog signal exactly, wirh no signal loss, as stated by Nyquist-Shannon.

Why would you say that? Digital cannot reproduce an analogue signal exactly. At the very simplest level, because you get quantisation distortion - an inevitable result of cutting the signal up into a series of discrete values rather than a continuously changing waveform.

When you turn those discrete values back into a continuously changing waveform at the loudspeaker, the DAC has to guess what originally filled in the gaps, and that cannot be “exact”.

It would probably be fair to say that most people can’t hear the difference, or not sufficiently well to pick one from the other in double-blind testing, but that’s not the same as perfection.

Audiophiles writing articles early in the digital audio transition were mathematically challenged and ran out of the lecture early, waving their arms in the air about “jaggies”. This gave rise the widespread misconception that digital is inherently inferior to analog. They should have stayed for the full lecture.

Here are some details for the mathematically inclined.
 

The situation was complicated in the late 1970’s into the 1980’s because hard core analog audio designers thought they could just paste a few chips onto their design and have a quality digital product. Likewise, the digital designers thought they could paste a few transistors or tubes onto their digital design and have adequate analog output. Both crews violated some basic design rules known to the other side and the result was less than optimal. In fairness, the colleges had just begun to offer adequate digital courses and there were relatively few trained engineers available.
 

Early CD’s did not sound very good. This was due to sloppy work in the studio and the CD players. The audiophiles latched on to this saying, “See, we told you so!”. And this has stuck with the popular culture. At this point virtually all of the engineers who were designing the less than adequate products have retired. 
 

I think that those who are listening to CD’s produced in the early 1980’s have a valid point when they complain: “sounds bad.”

While I agree that there’s a huge amount of misunderstanding about the strengths and weaknesses of digital storage and transmission, the one thing that you cannot avoid is loss of information.

When you sample an analogue sound at a given rate, you cannot avoid loss. Everything between your sample points is thrown away. That is inevitable - but of course it’s necessary, because you have to place a limit on how much information you want to store and convey somewhere else.

I’m not saying this because I’m any sort of audiophool. I haven’t listened to any purely analogue sources for many many years, and I abandoned vinyl long ago - though my reasons were more to do with convenience and lack of degradation than any other.

What I’m trying to emphasise is that saying that a digital copy of an analogue source can be exact is completely wrong. It can only ever be an approximation, and when it gets turned back into analogue the DAC has to make guesses about the missing information (i.e. interpolation between the sample points). These days, that process is very well understood, and the results are typically extremely accurate, as far as human hearing is concerned.

You may have left the lecture early.

Once you’ve decided the bandwidth that you want to digitize, frequencies above that must be filtered or there will be in-band mischief. At that point there is nothing to fall between sample points. You can argue that removing harmonics above 20KHz alters the music, but that’s another discussion. How many humans can benefit from having these harmonics available?

I was not questioning Nyqyist. What I was questioning was spending £500-800 on a turntable to connect it to a relatively cheap pair of speakers that will have equally cheap ADC/DAC stages along with fairly powerful radio transmitters. Seems like a waste of money if you want good quality vinyl audio, where I would stand by my ‘non-answer’. (We’ll gloss over the fact that most vinyl pressings these days are cut from digital masters)

If you just enjoy the process of buying vinyl, and using it, then fine, but I’d go Era 300’s over Five’s as they have much more modern innards so won’t get dropped by Sonos so quickly in the future. 

Unless you’ve dug the master disk cutter out of the 1970’s scrap heap, the cutter will digitize the input while cutting the pressing master.

That’s exactly my point. You have to decide the frequency limit beyond which you give up trying to capture anything - any content above that frequency is just thrown away. That’s what Nyquist demonstrated as a quantifiable effect.

The result is that what you get out of the other end can never be an exact copy - it will only be an accurate copy within the limits you place on your sample frequency.

Of course to most people the stuff that you throw away isn’t important, because they simply can’t hear it - though some people argue that they can still perceive it in one way or another.

And I have to admit that I agree with Ian_S - what is “best” in terms of speakers depends on the quality of the rest of your system. It doesn’t make sense to say that a £160,000 pair of Focal Grande Utopia EM Evos is the best solution if the rest of the system budget is £2000. In that respect, the OP’s question was a non-question.

I say it because it is true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampling_theorem

Strictly speaking, the theorem only applies to a class of mathematical functions having a Fourier transform that is zero outside of a finite region of frequencies. Intuitively we expect that when one reduces a continuous function to a discrete sequence and interpolates back to a continuous function, the fidelity of the result depends on the density (or sample rate) of the original samples. The sampling theorem introduces the concept of a sample rate that is sufficient for perfect fidelity for the class of functions that are band-limited to a given bandwidth, such that no actual information is lost in the sampling process. It expresses the sufficient sample rate in terms of the bandwidth for the class of functions. The theorem also leads to a formula for perfectly reconstructing the original continuous-time function from the samples.

Actually, that wasn’t your point.  At first you argued that “Everything between your sample points is thrown away. That is inevitable”, and we must “make guesses about the missing information”.  Then, when @buzz explained there are no gaps between sample points within a limited frequency range, you moved the goalposts to say everything above the range is thrown away, not everything between the sample points.. 

The filter can be constructive by removing distortion products from upstream processing that will have inband consequences later.  Tomlinson Holman is a narrow band advocate. Wide band advocates vociferously disagree with this approach.

I would argue that when sampled for all frequencies audible to any human ear which ever existed, what you have is indeed an exact copy.  No test of human hearing has ever proved differently. 

DAC/ADC chips are commodity items, you don’t have to spend more than a few pennies for 100% accuracy.  The math behind them is over 100 years old.  

It seems there aren’t many people in this thread that understand the basics of how digital encoding of audio actually happens. The gaps between sample points are gaps in time. It’s not possible to have “no gaps between sample points” - that would require an infinite sampling rate.

What actually happens is that you take a sample of the amplitude of the signal once for each tick of the sampling frequency “clock” - for CD audio you take one sample every 1/44100th of a second. What happens between each of those sample points? You don’t know because you only take a measurement at each tick of the clock. But you don’t care, as long as you don’t want to include any information with a frequency greater than half your sample rate. That’s what Nyquist documented.

What happens to the frequencies that are higher than that? That information is gone. You can’t get it back at the other end of an ADC - DAC conversion. It is simply not present.

Hence the copy is not an exact copy.

Even an analog process cannot result in an exact copy because the process adds noise and distortion and will probably not have an exactly uniform frequency response — assuming that the process bandwidth is as least as wide as the source. Even though a number of people consider an analog copy to be “perfect”, it’s always a little disheartening to compare copy 100, in a chain, with the original.

The real issue is: How well will the resulting copy fulfill its intended purpose?

It is for the frequencies we can actually hear. 

Agreed. But I felt it was important that we avoid saying that a digital copy is an exact copy, because that misrepresents the conversion process.

But... IMO, pretty much everything else about a digital copy makes it superior, compared with analogue. I’ve heard “print through” on analogue mastered vinyl, and the steady high frequency deterioration as the stylus grinds away the surface of the record each time you play it, and the audible noise that gets added when you carry out multiple edits (Kraftwerk’s early albums were a great example of this, groundbreaking as they were) and a load of other analogue artefacts.

And yet some people prefer vinyl, for all its flaws. I hope the OP finds a good match for his turntable, within his budget (whatever that might be).

I can hear from DC to Xrays and hear the rattle of individual electrons as they circle the voice coils.

And on the Internet nobody can prove I can't. 

Again, I am not questioning any of the maths. Just the quality of components being used throughout the chain. 3.5mm to RCA lead probably cheap, input board electronics via USB-C, along with plenty of digital noise. 

You can spend £1000 on a pair of Sonos Five speakers for a turntable or £1000 on a stereo amplifier and a pair of speakers, which will be fully analogue. 

Unless I wanted to transmit the record all around the house, which is risky when the needle hits hits the run out groove and you’re not in the same room, then Sonos would not be the answer. If I wanted to occasionally do the above, adding a Port at some point might make more sense. In ‘party’ mode ultimate SQ isn’t the main thing, although vinyl during a party is a much riskier thing than an all digital play list. 

Let’s not forget RIAA curves used in cutting and playback for vinyl… there’s no probably about it.