PDA

View Full Version : Difference between Sonos & Squeezebox re: NAS



socistep
2009-01-06, 06:50
Hi All,

Quick query to satisfy my curious mind....despite my best attempts a work colleague of mine has decided to get a Sonos set-up (he must have got a better bonus then me) and into that a Buffalo Linkstation NAS, from the conversations we've had he's said that he can just plug in the NAS and the Sonos system will pick up the music etc. from that.

As most know we have to have Squeezecenter running on the NAS, if want to use standalone, which causes quite a few challenges for people - at a high level how differently does the Sonos work to Squeezebox in this scenario ?

I presume that the Sonos 'box' runs their equivilant of Squeezecenter whereas Squeezebox has to have this running on a seperate PC, server, NAS etc. ?

Thanks
Ian

autopilot
2009-01-06, 08:25
To put it simply as i can, Squeezebox's are 'thin clients' - most operations and functions are handled by the server (squeezecenter). Sonos on the other hand do more processing locally - Sonos players are more complex and have far less server requirements (in fact all they require is a basic share or upnp server).

Pro's and cons to both approaches - but the main upshot for the Squeezebox approach is cheaper devices, and an open source extensible server architecture that allows for all the plugins and flexibility. Many of the best functions come from plugins, which Sono's don't have. The main 'pro' for sonos IMO is the extra stability, easier setup and slightly better networking - but it was never enough to sway me, even if it means a high speced server is required (still cheaper in the long run, if you have 2 or more rooms).

socistep
2009-01-06, 09:22
To put it simply as i can, Squeezebox's are 'thin clients' - most operations and functions are handled by the server (squeezecenter). Sonos on the other hand do more processing locally - Sonos players are more complex and have far less server requirements (in fact all they require is a basic share or upnp server).

Pro's and cons to both approaches - but the main upshot for the Squeezebox approach is cheaper devices, and an open source extensible server architecture that allows for all the plugins and flexibility. Many of the best functions come from plugins, which Sono's don't have. The main 'pro' for sonos IMO is the extra stability, easier setup and slightly better networking - but it was never enough to sway me, even if it means a high speced server is required (still cheaper in the long run, if you have 2 or more rooms).

Thanks that explains it well.

I still believe the pro's for SB far outweigh the Sonos, but I guess their approach is "easier" for NAS's which cause a lot of SB users issues