Sonos

[Mattywerewolf]

I have a Napster (by Rhapsody) account that I use with my Sonos.
Spotify always seems to be discussed more regularly than Napster so I guess it's more popular. Was wondering how do the two services differ? Why is Spotify so much more popular?

I use Napster as well. £5 per month subscription for everything through Sonos system. Quite simply works amazingly well. I've heard that quality of sound from spotify is marginally better but 99.9% of music lovers wont be able to tell the difference blindfolded IMO. Looked at length at alternatives to make life simple to stream music as well as play my collection from NAS drive and Sonos was by far the best.

 

[Springal]

Call me a Luddite but you can stick that shit up your arse - make an effort and buy your own music thus contributing to artists wanting to actually make albums rather than one off download tracks.

I assume you are referring to Spotify, rather than Sonos ?

 

[Mattywerewolf]

Call me a Luddite but you can stick that shit up your arse - make an effort and buy your own music thus contributing to artists wanting to actually make albums rather than one off download tracks.

Strangely in our situation my kids use Spotify as a means to sample music before buying. We also pay for the spotify subscription which goes to pay the artists. Don't regard this in any way as damaging the music industry....But this is really a Sonos thread

 

[Bold Seagull]

We also pay for the spotify subscription which goes to pay the artists.

I thought the subscription was simply replacing the income lost through subscribers not having adverts. The artists get paid from the revenue from adverts and subscriptions. In fact, I would suspect the model is unsustainable if everyone went subscription and they lost their advertising revenue stream.

 

[Mattywerewolf]

I thought the subscription was simply replacing the income lost through subscribers not having adverts. The artists get paid from the revenue from adverts and subscriptions. In fact, I would suspect the model is unsustainable if everyone went subscription and they lost their advertising revenue stream.

Directly or indirectly the artists would only allow Spotify / napster to share their music with a revenue stream. You may well be right that the advertisers alone would not support this model but at the moment it seems to work well.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Directly or indirectly the artists would only allow Spotify / napster to share their music with a revenue stream. You may well be right that the advertisers alone would not support this model but at the moment it seems to work well.

Of course, but what you appeared to say was that you pay the subscription as if that decision is a moral choice in making a contribution to the artists. What I am saying, is that neither Spotify or Napster would work without the advertising revenue streams and therefore someone listening for free but suffering the ads is contributing just as much to the artists as someone subscribing.

You are subscribing for the benefits that subscription gives you, you are not making any greater contribution to the artists than any other user.

 

[Mattywerewolf]

Of course, but what you appeared to say was that you pay the subscription as if that decision is a moral choice in making a contribution to the artists. What I am saying, is that neither Spotify or Napster would work without the advertising revenue streams and therefore someone listening for free but suffering the ads is contributing just as much to the artists as someone subscribing.

You are subscribing for the benefits that subscription gives you, you are not making any greater contribution to the artists than any other user.

Understand what you are saying but i don't agree that 100% comes from the advertising. I would say a proportion does and some from the additional revenue of those that subscribe. This is really proven by the fact that if nobody fee subscribed the model probably wouldn't work since neither the provider (spotify) nor the artists would make enough money to compensate for the loss of revenue from less people buying directly. Artists also recognise that by people listening to their music streamed they are more likely to buy it. It really is a pain to stream on the go since you rely on wifi / 3g signal strength and so if you really like a song / album you will buy it.

 

[sten_super]

I've never managed to justify the massive expense of a Sonos system. When I did go for a wireless music system in our house last year I ended up buying a Cambridge Audio AM10 amp, a pair of Wharfdale Diamond 9.0 speakers and a Harman Kardon BTA10 bluetooth receiver all for about £200 from Richer Sounds. It also doubles as a speaker system for the TV.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Understand what you are saying but i don't agree that 100% comes from the advertising. I would say a proportion does and some from the additional revenue of those that subscribe. This is really proven by the fact that if nobody fee subscribed the model probably wouldn't work since neither the provider (spotify) nor the artists would make enough money to compensate for the loss of revenue from less people buying directly. Artists also recognise that by people listening to their music streamed they are more likely to buy it. It really is a pain to stream on the go since you rely on wifi / 3g signal strength and so if you really like a song / album you will buy it.

Yep, I think we agree on this. It needs the contribution of both. The more subscribers they have, the more secured revenue. But equally the more free users they have, the greater amount of advertising they can sell. I was interested to read that they are going to let you watch video ads in exchange for 30mins premium. From making big losses up to 2010, it seems the platform is flying now.

http://www.reelseo.com/spotify-video-ads/

 

[Bold Seagull]

I've never managed to justify the massive expense of a Sonos system. When I did go for a wireless music system in our house last year I ended up buying a Cambridge Audio AM10 amp, a pair of Wharfdale Diamond 9.0 speakers and a Harman Kardon BTA10 bluetooth receiver all for about £200 from Richer Sounds. It also doubles as a speaker system for the TV.

The big difference is the wireless technology I guess. Doesn't the sonos working on wifi allow you much greater control over the system thought your tablet / smart phone / computer? Whereas bluetooth allows for a wireless set up but is limited on the control setup? I might be wrong. I have a bluetooth soundbar, but basically the bluetooth simply replaces the jack lead in terms of what I can do with it, and it has to pair with a particular device to work (which of course works for the vast majority of us).

I've seen sonos setup, and your ability to choose which speaker is playing what in whatever room from the same device is impressive and does set it apart - at least thats how I've understood it.

 

[LamieRobertson]

The big difference is the wireless technology I guess. Doesn't the sonos working on wifi allow you much greater control over the system thought your tablet / smart phone / computer? Whereas bluetooth allows for a wireless set up but is limited on the control setup? I might be wrong. I have a bluetooth soundbar, but basically the bluetooth simply replaces the jack lead in terms of what I can do with it, and it has to pair with a particular device to work (which of course works for the vast majority of us).

I've seen sonos setup, and you're ability to choose which speaker is playing what in whatever room from the same device is impressive and does set it apart - at least thats how I've understood it.

i also use a 'mini' sound bar by Orbit having sold my sonos player a couple of years ago...i get the control i need via bluetooth (air book/ipad) plus i use it through the tv for sound on films ..i've found that system much more flexible.....if i had a bigger house i would have stuck with the sonos system with its options of a player in other rooms

 

[jgmcdee]

A have something akin to Sonos and having six or seven players around the house all synchronised and playing the same music is a wonder to behold.

Remote control of the kids' music is another very handy thing to have. I use both local NAS and Spotify, although finding myself using Spotify more often than not as otherwise I find myself falling back to older music. My CD purchasing has slowed down somewhat since using Spotify, but I'm still buying them and from what I've read Spotify does contribute a significant amount of royalties (http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/ is Spotify's own take on it).

So yeah, with or without Spotify a decent networked music system is fantastic. If only I could get the football on it I could remove that last non-networked music item I posses - a small DAB radio bought specifically for listening to Radio Sussex on days I can't make it to the match.

 

[sten_super]

The big difference is the wireless technology I guess. Doesn't the sonos working on wifi allow you much greater control over the system thought your tablet / smart phone / computer? Whereas bluetooth allows for a wireless set up but is limited on the control setup? I might be wrong. I have a bluetooth soundbar, but basically the bluetooth simply replaces the jack lead in terms of what I can do with it, and it has to pair with a particular device to work (which of course works for the vast majority of us).

I've seen sonos setup, and your ability to choose which speaker is playing what in whatever room from the same device is impressive and does set it apart - at least thats how I've understood it.

Sorry, I should have stated that I stream all of my music through my tablet/phone anyway (Google Play subscription). So the bluetooth receiver allows me to use my tablet as a volume control and to line up songs.

I'm with [MENTION=11350]LamieRobertson[/MENTION] on the Sonos system - my house simply isn't large enough to need it. If I'm relaxing anywhere downstairs I can listen to music through the stereo, and if I'm upstairs it's because I'm doing something and I don't require a musical accompaniment.

 

[narly101]

I eventually binned Sonos and moved my entire house to Airplay.

 

[beefypigeon]

If it's sound quality you're after, look no further than the Bowers & Wilkins Zeppelin Air. Far superior in sound compared to anything Sonos can muster, and for those of you with Apple products it works wirelessly using AirPlay in a similar way to how Sonos works (but by connecting to your own wireless network, rather than you having to shell out for a dedicated 'bridge').

 

[Geestar]

If it's sound quality you're after, look no further than the Bowers & Wilkins Zeppelin Air. Far superior in sound compared to anything Sonos can muster, and for those of you with Apple products it works wirelessly using AirPlay in a similar way to how Sonos works (but by connecting to your own wireless network, rather than you having to shell out for a dedicated 'bridge').

The bridge is a thing of the past in certain setups

 

[rcf0712]

Strangely in our situation my kids use Spotify as a means to sample music before buying. We also pay for the spotify subscription which goes to pay the artists. Don't regard this in any way as damaging the music industry....But this is really a Sonos thread

Shows how much I know about the subject.......

 

[CheeseRolls]

I don't think there is a one size fits all solution. Anyone interested in purchasing a NAS for streaming should look at Synology, as they have the best reputation for streaming media. For multi-room music systems, take a look at Qualcomm Allplay. Panasonic have launched a range of speakers that support this.