{"id":3717,"date":"2020-06-01T10:00:00","date_gmt":"2020-06-01T10:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aviancetechnologies.com\/blog\/blog\/sonos-port-review-a-mostly-unworthy-successor-to-the-sonos-connect\/"},"modified":"2020-06-01T10:00:00","modified_gmt":"2020-06-01T10:00:00","slug":"sonos-port-review-a-mostly-unworthy-successor-to-the-sonos-connect","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aviancetechnologies.com\/blog\/sonos-port-review-a-mostly-unworthy-successor-to-the-sonos-connect\/","title":{"rendered":"Sonos Port review: A mostly unworthy successor to the Sonos Connect"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0\u00a0
\n[responsivevoice_button rate=”1\u2033 pitch=”1.2\u2033 volume=”0.8\u2033 voice=”US English Female” buttontext=”Story in Audio”]<\/p>\n

Sonos Port review: A mostly unworthy successor to the Sonos Connect<\/h2>\n

<\/p>\n

\n

Sonos covers all the bases: The audio component maker builds a range of powered speakers and soundbars to stream music from every source, local or on the web, but it also offers a stand-alone tuner\/amp if you want to use higher-end passive loudspeakers. And for customers who want streaming music delivered to their own<\/em> favorite amp or receiver and higher-end speakers, the company launched an add-on, tuner-like component: the Sonos ZonePlayer 80 in early 2006, which was succeeded by the ZonePlayer 90 in 2008. The ZP90 was later relaunched as the Sonos Connect. That<\/em> product has been succeeded by the topic of this review, the Sonos Port.<\/p>\n

With the imminent launch of the Sonos S2 operating system, Sonos Connect owners must make a crucial decision: Replace every Connect with a Port\u2014at $449 a pop\u2014or forgo S2. The situation grows even more stressful if you have any combination of newer and legacy (pre-2013) Sonos hardware: The latter includes the aged Connect:Amp\/ZP120 and the first-gen Play:5 speaker. Sonos says its older hardware doesn\u2019t have enough processor power or memory to run the S2 OS, so any Sonos system that includes a mix of older and new components must be bifurcated and the two groups controlled separately (you\u2019ll find more details in this story).<\/p>\n

If you crave the benefits that S2 promises to deliver\u2014including support for higher-resolution audio and Dolby Atmos (in the new Arc soundbar, for instance)\u2014you really don\u2019t have a choice. But if you can resist the urge to upgrade to the latest, greatest software, hang onto your legacy hardware and run it on the original platform (now called S1). That goes double for anyone who cares deeply about audio quality and has a Connect linked to high-end audio components.<\/p>\n

After conducting a comprehensive series of A\/B listening tests, I\u2019ve concluded that the Port sounds vastly inferior to the Connect it replaces. The Port puts out decent sound, acceptable in a storm and with music you\u2019re not intimately familiar with. But compared to the Connect, the Port\u2019s sound field seems flattened, compressed, and so lacking in personality that you might think it was delivered by phone line.<\/p>\n

\"sonos<\/a> Jonathan Takiff \/ IDG<\/small>
\n

Older components like the Connect (right) aren\u2019t compatible with the new S2 operating system and can\u2019t be grouped with newer components that are.<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Feature set<\/h2>\n

I get the impression that the Sonos product-management team started with an idealized sketch of a smaller, prettier, market-friendly successor to the clunky-looking Connect. Then the engineers went to work, squeezing in what they could to deliver a slim, trim box that looks good on a retail shelf\u2014and that almost disappears when perched atop an A\/V receiver. Most especially, something that would appeal to the custom-installer community, who will find the Port easy to use and won\u2019t balk at its price tag (which they\u2019ll mark way up in their quotes to their well-heeled clients).<\/p>\n