Solutions to problems we don't really have?
Discussion
I ask in case I am missing something....
Why bother with sonos type systems that can play music in any room?
If I am listening to music, I am normally sat in one room for long enough to consider myself stationary, so just rely on the set up in one room. If I am in my lounge, I have my seperates, albeit now with chromecast in case I need that option. If I am in my kitchen/family room, again, my micro hi-if thing. Any other room, or garden, a Bluetooth speaker.
And what is with ceiling speakers being fitted in bathrooms? Why wouldn't you just use a Bluetooth speaker in there instead? Surely the sound quality is on a similar level, and is far more future proof if you don't have yesterday's tech cut in to your ceiling. And what kind of sound quality do you expect if you have the shower running, or in the bath?
Maybe it is my age. Growing up in the 80's portable music systems were the thing, and I still find that picking up a good Bluetooth speaker is far easier than bothering with a multi room set up?
I am a philistine, or have a lot of people just managed to convince themselves to spend money on toys that don't really solve a problem?
Why bother with sonos type systems that can play music in any room?
If I am listening to music, I am normally sat in one room for long enough to consider myself stationary, so just rely on the set up in one room. If I am in my lounge, I have my seperates, albeit now with chromecast in case I need that option. If I am in my kitchen/family room, again, my micro hi-if thing. Any other room, or garden, a Bluetooth speaker.
And what is with ceiling speakers being fitted in bathrooms? Why wouldn't you just use a Bluetooth speaker in there instead? Surely the sound quality is on a similar level, and is far more future proof if you don't have yesterday's tech cut in to your ceiling. And what kind of sound quality do you expect if you have the shower running, or in the bath?
Maybe it is my age. Growing up in the 80's portable music systems were the thing, and I still find that picking up a good Bluetooth speaker is far easier than bothering with a multi room set up?
I am a philistine, or have a lot of people just managed to convince themselves to spend money on toys that don't really solve a problem?
Sonos is a decent solution for those wanting easy & convenient multi-room sound but sometimes slightly less convenience is a price worth paying when the benefit is far better sound quality.
I have a Novafidelity X12 used as a preamp /source to feed the main lounge system and another system in the conservatory. It could be used to feed Sonos setups in other rooms but I use 'old' systems in each other 'zone' instead.Dining room, kitchen, bedrooms, TV and outside all have their own setup. Most of these have bluetooth sources; some of these have decent analogue & CD sources too.
Northdave.........have you used CSR's APT-X bluetooth yet ? Way ahead of standard Bluetooth, certainly fine for me on most occasions. Its the codec used by Krell, Mark Levinson, Naim, B&W etc
https://www.aptx.com/products?field_product_catego...
I have a Novafidelity X12 used as a preamp /source to feed the main lounge system and another system in the conservatory. It could be used to feed Sonos setups in other rooms but I use 'old' systems in each other 'zone' instead.Dining room, kitchen, bedrooms, TV and outside all have their own setup. Most of these have bluetooth sources; some of these have decent analogue & CD sources too.
Northdave.........have you used CSR's APT-X bluetooth yet ? Way ahead of standard Bluetooth, certainly fine for me on most occasions. Its the codec used by Krell, Mark Levinson, Naim, B&W etc
https://www.aptx.com/products?field_product_catego...
Edited by Crackie on Saturday 26th August 12:49
NorthDave said:
Plus bluetooth sounds appalling. It takes an already compressed source and compresses it more. This might only come in to it's own with a decent pair of speakers but if you are going to go in to this half hearted then just turn the bedroom radio up and leave the door open.
This!BT is polishing a turd.
Apt-X is simply adding glitter.
The big name manufacturers with five figure products add this 'fuctionality' because the market demands it, not because a wireless protocol with severe limitations adds anything to the sound quality.
And I use BT regularly. Garage feeding a little TEAC system, shower with a BT speaker etc but it's not because of any perceived quality. When home alone the door is open and the proper system is cranked up.
Each to their own but this multi room stuff with speakers in every room and most ceilings is the modern day 3D TV - impress mates for 15 seconds then wait for the next fad to arrive.
Convenience
Ease Of Use
Sound Coverage In A Room Superior To Freestanding Speaker
No Cables On Show..
Multi Room has it's place of course, but a lot of people we speak to don't really want it, they just think they do.
When you explain the actual differences a lot are happy with bluetooth ceiling speakers instead. Saves money but only by removing the multi room features the customer doesn't really even want anyway.
Portable speakers are fine, but you have to plug them in = cables, or you have to charge them = dead batteries, no music.
It's not a life saving product I agree, but people like music and people also like convenience so therefore there is a market for them.
And yes it does have some "cool" factor to show off as well. Doesn't have to cost a fortune though, unless you are set on multi-room then it mostly does!
And whilst Bluetooth does have it's quality limitations, for 99% of people they don't really care as the convenience wins over and they'll rarely notice anyway.
If someone really wants the best audiophile sound quality ever then they probably won't be buying ceiling speakers at all...
Ease Of Use
Sound Coverage In A Room Superior To Freestanding Speaker
No Cables On Show..
Multi Room has it's place of course, but a lot of people we speak to don't really want it, they just think they do.
When you explain the actual differences a lot are happy with bluetooth ceiling speakers instead. Saves money but only by removing the multi room features the customer doesn't really even want anyway.
Portable speakers are fine, but you have to plug them in = cables, or you have to charge them = dead batteries, no music.
It's not a life saving product I agree, but people like music and people also like convenience so therefore there is a market for them.
And yes it does have some "cool" factor to show off as well. Doesn't have to cost a fortune though, unless you are set on multi-room then it mostly does!
And whilst Bluetooth does have it's quality limitations, for 99% of people they don't really care as the convenience wins over and they'll rarely notice anyway.
If someone really wants the best audiophile sound quality ever then they probably won't be buying ceiling speakers at all...
MrSparks said:
Convenience
Ease Of Use
Sound Coverage In A Room Superior To Freestanding Speaker
No Cables On Show..
Multi Room has it's place of course, but a lot of people we speak to don't really want it, they just think they do.
When you explain the actual differences a lot are happy with bluetooth ceiling speakers instead. Saves money but only by removing the multi room features the customer doesn't really even want anyway.
Portable speakers are fine, but you have to plug them in = cables, or you have to charge them = dead batteries, no music.
It's not a life saving product I agree, but people like music and people also like convenience so therefore there is a market for them.
And yes it does have some "cool" factor to show off as well. Doesn't have to cost a fortune though, unless you are set on multi-room then it mostly does!
And whilst Bluetooth does have it's quality limitations, for 99% of people they don't really care as the convenience wins over and they'll rarely notice anyway.
If someone really wants the best audiophile sound quality ever then they probably won't be buying ceiling speakers at all...
Sorry Mr Sparks - I think we approach this from different ends. If a client wants to connect Bluetooth then I'd just give them a Bose dock. If you are wiring for Bluetooth speakers you need to run wire to it and therefore might as well have an amp to drive it. Even a Sonos connect amp and a basic set of ceiling speakers will blow anything bluetooth out of the water. I also dont like having to rely on a phone as a source.Ease Of Use
Sound Coverage In A Room Superior To Freestanding Speaker
No Cables On Show..
Multi Room has it's place of course, but a lot of people we speak to don't really want it, they just think they do.
When you explain the actual differences a lot are happy with bluetooth ceiling speakers instead. Saves money but only by removing the multi room features the customer doesn't really even want anyway.
Portable speakers are fine, but you have to plug them in = cables, or you have to charge them = dead batteries, no music.
It's not a life saving product I agree, but people like music and people also like convenience so therefore there is a market for them.
And yes it does have some "cool" factor to show off as well. Doesn't have to cost a fortune though, unless you are set on multi-room then it mostly does!
And whilst Bluetooth does have it's quality limitations, for 99% of people they don't really care as the convenience wins over and they'll rarely notice anyway.
If someone really wants the best audiophile sound quality ever then they probably won't be buying ceiling speakers at all...
Different strokes for different folks and all that!
legzr1 said:
BT is polishing a turd.
Apt-X is simply adding glitter.
The big name manufacturers with five figure products add this 'fuctionality' because the market demands it, not because a wireless protocol with severe limitations adds anything to the sound quality.
And I use BT regularly. Garage feeding a little TEAC system, shower with a BT speaker etc but it's not because of any perceived quality. When home alone the door is open and the proper system is cranked up.
Each to their own but this multi room stuff with speakers in every room and most ceilings is the modern day 3D TV - impress mates for 15 seconds then wait for the next fad to arrive.
Fair enough BT is relatively pants, APT-X is far better but still behind a good source. Most of the time APT-X is more than adequate for background listening, which is what many of us do, most of the time. If I'm listening 'properly' the other rooms are fed by Wadia, Exposure or a couple of Technics CD players......less than 5% of the time though. Opportunities to listen properly to the main system are few and far between; listening to that system now though Apt-X is simply adding glitter.
The big name manufacturers with five figure products add this 'fuctionality' because the market demands it, not because a wireless protocol with severe limitations adds anything to the sound quality.
And I use BT regularly. Garage feeding a little TEAC system, shower with a BT speaker etc but it's not because of any perceived quality. When home alone the door is open and the proper system is cranked up.
Each to their own but this multi room stuff with speakers in every room and most ceilings is the modern day 3D TV - impress mates for 15 seconds then wait for the next fad to arrive.
Edited by Crackie on Saturday 26th August 12:54
Beyond the expected sarcastic responses, I'm still not really hearing much to make me think I am missing anything.
I am about to audition a Dali Katch and see if that will fit my portable speaker needs, The thing I thought I was missing was DAB with my phone powering a BT speaker but even that is sorted with the Radioplayer app.
I guess the last 10% in sound quality is beyond me caring about, so happy with these inferior items.....
I am about to audition a Dali Katch and see if that will fit my portable speaker needs, The thing I thought I was missing was DAB with my phone powering a BT speaker but even that is sorted with the Radioplayer app.
I guess the last 10% in sound quality is beyond me caring about, so happy with these inferior items.....
Crackie said:
Fair enough BT is relatively pants, APT-X is far better but still behind a good source. Most of the time BT is more than adequate for background listening, which is what many of us do, most of the time. If I'm listening 'properly' the other rooms are fed by a Wadia, Exposure or a couple of Technics CD players......less than 5% of the time though. Opportunities to listen properly to the main system are few and far between; listening to that system now though
Agreed (although 'my' percentages differ Edited by Crackie on Saturday 26th August 10:07
).NorthDave said:
Sorry Mr Sparks - I think we approach this from different ends. If a client wants to connect Bluetooth then I'd just give them a Bose dock. If you are wiring for Bluetooth speakers you need to run wire to it and therefore might as well have an amp to drive it. Even a Sonos connect amp and a basic set of ceiling speakers will blow anything bluetooth out of the water. I also dont like having to rely on a phone as a source.
Different strokes for different folks and all that!
I agree, everyone is different, that's why there are so many options of everything.. cars, watches, food.. Different strokes for different folks and all that!
What's pointless to me might be used daily and enjoyed by you, and vice versa. That's what I love about the world
And I agree Sonos/Heos/Anything WiFi is generally better, but it's also up to three times the price. Not everyone can afford/justify Sonos
Luckily that's also what keeps both of us in business as we're at both ends of the market
People will always want high end, installed systems as much as people will also want to stick a cost effective bluetooth speaker in their ceiling whilst re-doing their kitchen.p.s we often put WiFi streamers onto bluetooth powered speakers, best of both worlds, no where near Sonos money, win win
Edited by MrSparks on Saturday 26th August 15:46
Edited by MrSparks on Saturday 26th August 15:48
The last thing I want to do is to have to carry a speaker around with me or wear headphones as I mooch about the house. I like my sonos because it means I can have the same audio everywhere in the house (i.e. I can walk from my office to the kitchen without missing any of my music/radio 4/audiobook) without the hassle of carrying something around and constantly recharging yet another device and without having to suffer through mediocre BT-quality audio.
I also grew up in the 80's and I can't remember anyone who would carry a portable music device around with them in the house. You either had a fixed installation in the lounge and a couple of radios in various rooms, all potentially playing the same thing with random delays and repeats, or you wandered about with headphones on, constantly changing tapes, fiddling with fm radio frequencies or changing AA batteries.
Nope, give me a mains-powered, multi-room set-up any day. Sure, a 90's style fully-wired in system had it's own hassles but with modern wifi technology, systems like sonos, Denon heos etc are just awesome.
I also grew up in the 80's and I can't remember anyone who would carry a portable music device around with them in the house. You either had a fixed installation in the lounge and a couple of radios in various rooms, all potentially playing the same thing with random delays and repeats, or you wandered about with headphones on, constantly changing tapes, fiddling with fm radio frequencies or changing AA batteries.
Nope, give me a mains-powered, multi-room set-up any day. Sure, a 90's style fully-wired in system had it's own hassles but with modern wifi technology, systems like sonos, Denon heos etc are just awesome.
Everyone is indeed different.
I started off years ago with Slimserver, which became Squeezebox and then became opensource. Because it is an open system, I get the best of all words.
- I can put structured systems in my house if I want to. I'm not a big one for shower discos, and my experience of spannering technology into houses is that the lifespan of technology is <<<<< than the lifespan of houses. But I could do it if I wanted to.
- I can use portable devices or wire it into existing devices. This ranges from a radio type thing in the kitchen, to a HiFiBerry based source and a power amp that gives most high end systems a run for its money when playing a FLAC rather than mp3. I can synchronise them to do multiroom if I want to, but honestly, I find that the echo from multiple sources sounds utterly pants.
- I can play music on my iPad/phone. This is great - I can be on holiday, and have access to everything that I have at home, played through whatever device is available to me. Last night sitting in a hotel room (not on holiday), I was playing music through a diddy bluetooth speaker, streamed from home.
IMO "openness" is the main determinant of a good approach to doing this.
I started off years ago with Slimserver, which became Squeezebox and then became opensource. Because it is an open system, I get the best of all words.
- I can put structured systems in my house if I want to. I'm not a big one for shower discos, and my experience of spannering technology into houses is that the lifespan of technology is <<<<< than the lifespan of houses. But I could do it if I wanted to.
- I can use portable devices or wire it into existing devices. This ranges from a radio type thing in the kitchen, to a HiFiBerry based source and a power amp that gives most high end systems a run for its money when playing a FLAC rather than mp3. I can synchronise them to do multiroom if I want to, but honestly, I find that the echo from multiple sources sounds utterly pants.
- I can play music on my iPad/phone. This is great - I can be on holiday, and have access to everything that I have at home, played through whatever device is available to me. Last night sitting in a hotel room (not on holiday), I was playing music through a diddy bluetooth speaker, streamed from home.
IMO "openness" is the main determinant of a good approach to doing this.
Forums | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff