What next from sonos?

farawaydave

New member
Oct 2, 2008
60
0
0
Visit site
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
 

audioaffair

New member
Feb 21, 2009
100
0
0
Visit site
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

New member
Nov 30, 2010
36
0
0
Visit site
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!
 

The_Lhc

Well-known member
Oct 16, 2008
1,176
1
19,195
Visit site
richardw42 said:
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.
 

Deliriumbassist

Well-known member
Apr 27, 2011
164
121
18,770
Visit site
Trefor Patten said:
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?
 

skippy

New member
Mar 11, 2012
68
0
0
Visit site
namefail said:
Trefor Patten said:
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

Well-known member
Apr 7, 2013
52
4
18,545
Visit site
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

Well-known member
Oct 16, 2008
1,176
1
19,195
Visit site
skippy said:
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

Well-known member
Oct 16, 2008
1,176
1
19,195
Visit site
matt49 said:
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.
 

matt49

Well-known member
Apr 7, 2013
52
4
18,545
Visit site
The_Lhc said:
matt49 said:
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

New member
Mar 11, 2012
68
0
0
Visit site
The_Lhc said:
skippy said:
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??
 

The_Lhc

Well-known member
Oct 16, 2008
1,176
1
19,195
Visit site
matt49 said:
The_Lhc said:
matt49 said:
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

Well-known member
Oct 16, 2008
1,176
1
19,195
Visit site
skippy said:
The_Lhc said:
skippy said:
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.
 

skippy

New member
Mar 11, 2012
68
0
0
Visit site
The_Lhc said:
skippy said:
The_Lhc said:
skippy said:
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

Well-known member
Oct 16, 2008
1,176
1
19,195
Visit site
skippy said:
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.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts