What next from sonos?

[farawaydave]

What would you like next from sonos.personally a set of rather good headphones,imagine being able to sit with the better half and not here a thing except what YOU want to listen to.even when all the soaps are on.....Heaven

 

[richardw42]

I reckon Sonos headphones is a genius idea. Write to them.

Now that Qobuz is supported I wonder if a hi res Connect might happen.

 

[audioaffair]

Well, as soon as we get news of anything, we will certainly let you know folks, however, these would be a bit of a pain, if they were mains powered!

 

[BillDay66]

Bathroom ceiling mounted speakers - like the Play 1 but pancake shaped! So I can listen to Johnny Cash in the bath without having to spend too much money for the dubious pleasure of it!

 

[Diamond Joe]

A battery powered ruggedised, waterproof outdoor speaker would be nice. Good call on the headphones idea too.

 

[The_Lhc]

I reckon Sonos headphones is a genius idea. Write to them.

What, you think nobody's ever suggested it to them before? It's one of the oldest and most requested ideas on the Sonos forum, hasn't happened in 8 years, don't see any reason why they'd do it now.

 

[greycounciller]

How about a Windows Phone App!!

 

[Deliriumbassist]

Paired higher end seprate speakers- so basically better speakers with an updated Connect:Amp on board that are automatically set as a stereo pair.

 

[Trefor Patten]

Can't anyone spell any more |(

 

[namefail]

Can't anyone spell any more |(

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Apparently not.
:dance: :dance: :dance:

 

[Deliriumbassist]

Can't anyone spell any more |(

If that's in response to my typo of 'separate,' I do apologise that the crack in my iPad screen sometimes causes a couple of letters not to be registered when pressed. I assume that the same happens to your question mark button?

 

[ID.]

Can't anyone spell any more |(

I assume that the same happens to your question mark button?

:rofl:

 

[skippy]

Can't anyone spell any more |(

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Apparently not.

:dance: :dance: :dance:

+1 should be anymore in this instance, what has spelling got to do with the post?

Personally I'd like to see a remote version of the connect, whereby you'd have a master, plugged into the router then you could buy slave units (for half the price of a connect), that you can simply plug into a pair of monitors in any location in the house.

 

[matt49]

If Sonos made a stripped-down version of the Connect with a high quality PSU and async USB output, I'd buy one. But it'd be a niche product, and I recognize it's unlikely to happen.

 

[The_Lhc]

Personally I'd like to see a remote version of the connect, whereby you'd have a master, plugged into the router then you could buy slave units (for half the price of a connect), that you can simply plug into a pair of monitors in any location in the house.

You don't appear to understand how Sonos works, every player is a self-contained unit, no master, no slaves. The units you describe would be physically identical to a Connect, it would have to be, as it would still have all the same network and audio requirements that the Connect has, so what exactly do you think they would leave out to make it half the cost?

 

[The_Lhc]

If Sonos made a stripped-down version of the Connect with a high quality PSU and async USB output, I'd buy one. But it'd be a niche product, and I recognize it's unlikely to happen.

I get the impression the Connect's quite a niche product already! If there is a new version anytime soon I can easily see it having a USB output, although people would immediately start trying to plug external hard drives into it and I seem to recall Sonos ruled out doing that a while back.

 

[Cypher]

A digital amp would be awesome. Like the NAD D3020 or Nuforce DDA-100.

 

[matt49]

If Sonos made a stripped-down version of the Connect with a high quality PSU and async USB output, I'd buy one. But it'd be a niche product, and I recognize it's unlikely to happen.

I get the impression the Connect's quite a niche product already! If there is a new version anytime soon I can easily see it having a USB output, although people would immediately start trying to plug external hard drives into it and I seem to recall Sonos ruled out doing that a while back.

I'm sure you're right, on both counts. I imagine the speaker units sell a lot more than the Connect.

I guess what's interesting about this thread is that no-one's come up with an idea that's remotely likely to take off. Makes you wonder where Sonos will go from here, or indeed if they need to go anywhere at all.

 

[skippy]

Personally I'd like to see a remote version of the connect, whereby you'd have a master, plugged into the router then you could buy slave units (for half the price of a connect), that you can simply plug into a pair of monitors in any location in the house.

You don't appear to understand how Sonos works, every player is a self-contained unit, no master, no slaves. The units you describe would be physically identical to a Connect, it would have to be, as it would still have all the same network and audio requirements that the Connect has, so what exactly do you think they would leave out to make it half the cost?

I roughly know how the unit works, but I'm just saying if you had a central brain unit (master) which sends the info to the (remote) slave units, that'd be nice. Is nobody allowed to make a comment about Sonos without you butting in?

You say they wouldn't be able to make it cheaper, but the price of a connect is $400 here, the price of a play3 is $329, this includes speakers, amp and the (brains) internals of the connect, how does that work??

 

[namefail]

^^^ Do you mean if is wasn't selling they'd cut the price?

 

[The_Lhc]

If Sonos made a stripped-down version of the Connect with a high quality PSU and async USB output, I'd buy one. But it'd be a niche product, and I recognize it's unlikely to happen.

I get the impression the Connect's quite a niche product already! If there is a new version anytime soon I can easily see it having a USB output, although people would immediately start trying to plug external hard drives into it and I seem to recall Sonos ruled out doing that a while back.

I'm sure you're right, on both counts. I imagine the speaker units sell a lot more than the Connect.

I believe the Play:1 is comfortably the fastest selling unit Sonos has ever had, the Connect is a distant last if I recall what Clare was saying a while back correctly.

I guess what's interesting about this thread is that no-one's come up with an idea that's remotely likely to take off. Makes you wonder where Sonos will go from here, or indeed if they need to go anywhere at all.

I think the Playbar has been dictating current direction for a while, when the Play:3 came out nobody understood why it had a 5GHz wireless antenna as there was no use for it. Then the SUB and Playbar came out and we found out it was to allow them all to be bonded together in a 5.1 system. Subsequently the Play:1 arrived to provide a cheaper surround sound option for the Playbar. That would all appear to done and dusted now, the AV system is complete (albeit with some drawbacks that aren't going to be fixed anytime soon).

I'm wondering if Sonos even know where to turn next. They have a complete ecosystem, bar something like a battery powered unit, which seems to be impractical at the moment due to battery life/size considerations (which is also going to be an issue for headphones).

Realistically, what else is left to do?

 

[The_Lhc]

Personally I'd like to see a remote version of the connect, whereby you'd have a master, plugged into the router then you could buy slave units (for half the price of a connect), that you can simply plug into a pair of monitors in any location in the house.

You don't appear to understand how Sonos works, every player is a self-contained unit, no master, no slaves. The units you describe would be physically identical to a Connect, it would have to be, as it would still have all the same network and audio requirements that the Connect has, so what exactly do you think they would leave out to make it half the cost?

I roughly know how the unit works, but I'm just saying if you had a central brain unit (master) which sends the info to the (remote) slave units, that'd be nice.

No, it wouldn't be nice, it would completely change the architecture that Sonos is built on, what would be the point? It also gives you a single point of failure, if that central unit breaks you've got no music. Right now any Sonos unit could fail and you'd either carry on with the others without noticing or, at worst, you'd just need to wire one of your units to the network (if the one that failed was the wired unit). From a functionality point of view, it's a step backwards.

Is nobody allowed to make a comment about Sonos without you butting in?

Why shouldn't I comment? This is a subject I'm interested in. It's the internet, if you don't want people to comment, don't say anything.

You say they wouldn't be able to make it cheaper, but the price of a connect is $400 here, the price of a play3 is $329, this includes speakers, amp and the (brains) internals of the connect, how does that work??

I didn't say the Connect couldn't be cheaper, my point was the unit you're describing IS a Connect, so why would they have two identical units on sale, with one at half the price of the other? Doesn't make any sense.

The Connect pricing is historical, when Sonos first appeared the original ZP80 and 90 WERE the cheap option, the Play units (or the 3 and the 1 at least) are priced to bring people into the ecosystem. The Connect is arguably more flexible than any of them and is targetted at people with half decent existing systems, for who £280 isn't much to pay for a CD quality source. If it wasn't selling they'd cut the price and that hasn't happened since day 1.

 

[The_Lhc]

^^^ Do you mean if is wasn't selling they'd cut the price?

Yes, I did, corrected, thanks.

 

[skippy]

Personally I'd like to see a remote version of the connect, whereby you'd have a master, plugged into the router then you could buy slave units (for half the price of a connect), that you can simply plug into a pair of monitors in any location in the house.

You don't appear to understand how Sonos works, every player is a self-contained unit, no master, no slaves. The units you describe would be physically identical to a Connect, it would have to be, as it would still have all the same network and audio requirements that the Connect has, so what exactly do you think they would leave out to make it half the cost?

I roughly know how the unit works, but I'm just saying if you had a central brain unit (master) which sends the info to the (remote) slave units, that'd be nice.

No, it wouldn't be nice, it would completely change the architecture that Sonos is built on, what would be the point? It also gives you a single point of failure, if that central unit breaks you've got no music. Right now any Sonos unit could fail and you'd either carry on with the others without noticing or, at worst, you'd just need to wire one of your units to the network (if the one that failed was the wired unit). From a functionality point of view, it's a step backwards.

Is nobody allowed to make a comment about Sonos without you butting in?

Why shouldn't I comment? This is a subject I'm interested in. It's the internet, if you don't want people to comment, don't say anything.

You say they wouldn't be able to make it cheaper, but the price of a connect is $400 here, the price of a play3 is $329, this includes speakers, amp and the (brains) internals of the connect, how does that work??

I didn't say the Connect couldn't be cheaper, my point was the unit you're describing IS a Connect, so why would they have two identical units on sale, with one at half the price of the other? Doesn't make any sense.

The Connect pricing is historical, when Sonos first appeared the original ZP80 and 90 WERE the cheap option, the Play units (or the 3 and the 1 at least) are priced to bring people into the ecosystem. The Connect is arguably more flexible than any of them and is targetted at people with half decent existing systems, for who £280 isn't much to pay for a CD quality source. If it wasn't selling they'd cut the price and that hasn't happened since day 1.

I don't know whether you have it in the Uk , but my cable provider has a system similar to what I'm talking about (but obviously for tv).

Basically you have the gateway which houses the HD and main brain, this is $350, then you have the portals at $140 a pop, these connect to each tv in the house. This allows the family to be able to watch a different show on each tv, record on one tv and then playback on a different one. It's very flexible and proving quite popular.

So, basically the same for the connect... Get it?

 

[The_Lhc]

So, basically the same for the connect... Get it?

I understood exactly what you said the first time, my point is there's no point to doing what you suggest. The "slaves" in this case would require EXACTLY the same hardware as the Connect already has, so all you'd be doing is making them reliant on another unit for their operation, which isn't necessary. I mean think about it, what would the unit require that the Connect doesn't already have? It still needs the networking hardware and it still needs the audio output hardware. That makes it a Connect, it's exactly the same, get it?

What you're actually after is just the Connect for less money isn't it? That's all you had to say, there's no need to change the way the system operates, especially as you're potentially making it less reliable.