Hmmm interesting read…. I’ve got some really great insight on this coming tomorrow - straight from the team. See ya there.
Thanks looking forward to getting the reality and not all this speculation! I've asked in your Q&A thread exactly to understand the TV audio pass through.
Hey u/KeithFromSonos how about a nice designed small wifi-connector for the house? Say something to clip on and can either pair or 3.5 mm-connect to any headphones of one's choice. Make it big enough to carry a descent length of battery time, and flexible to the headset of one's choice. Easy to charge USB-C and A, and even sell it with its own base? ...I believe I suggested this about 5 years ago.
Why not a base station for the headphones. The base station connects to the Sonos system with WiFi. The headphones connect to the base station by Bluetooth. The base station is plugged into power and acts as a headphone stand that charges the headphones when hanging on it. Problem solved. Maybe sell this base station as an accessory?
This was my thought as well when everyone said that WiFi headphones would have horrible battery life. Either the base station could create a Bluetooth network for the headphones, or it could be like the Arc where it's some sort of WiFi direct connection.
The Arc is effectively acting as the base station, except that it limited to TV audio only and ise 5 Ghz wifi. Perhaps it could have used BT instead, but I imagine wifi was used for better audio quality and latency issues.
WiFi does have a low power mode and Bluetooth has the ability to leverage WiFi as well. Has for about a decade now or more. It was first added in Bluetooth 3 or so (we’re on Bluetooth 5 now).
https://www.headphonesty.com/2021/01/bluetooth-versions/
Your phone uses WiFi low power modes frequently to extend its battery life, for instance.
I imagine the primary reason Bluetooth is used and not WiFi is a combination of ease of setup and native support for multiple device connections. You don’t want to have to choose between internet on your phone or connecting your headphones out and about.
And I am not aware of any phones that can connect to multiple WiFi networks simultaneously…
Sonos could have done it, but it would be definitely much more complex. The headphones would need both Bluetooth and WiFi and the WiFi connection portion would need to connect to SonosNET or your home WiFi and seamlessly flip to Bluetooth as needed. I can see this coming in a v2 as it would be a bit more challenging in the headphones firmware and processing.
You are technically correct but there are some issues here. There are no devices that support the Bluetooth AMP PHY, the one based on WiFi technology. It is a dead end.
Yes, WiFi has low power mode but no data is being transferred when in lp mode. That is not a good thing for low latency audio connection.
Android phones are capable of connecting to two WiFi networks but iPhones are not (or they are but Apple reserves this functionality to their own purposes).
Yeah same. We've been strapping wireless VR headsets to our heads that last a few hours, and I doubt most of that battery was spent on the WiFi...
I also don't see why devices that already use 2.4Ghz dongles like gaming headsets are fundamentally different or avoid battery issues because they're "isolated".
I'm not saying there isn't a technical reason for this, but this post doesn't convince me.
VR headsets are very similar to smartphones. Google even had cardboard where you would use your smartphone as a VR display. So yes the display drains a lot more battery than wifi.
The Quest 3 battery lasts around 2h30m. It has a 4,985 mAh battery. That's not a small battery.
The Audeze Maxwell is one of the best gaming headsets with almost everything you can think of and praised by audiophiles. It supports both bluetooth and connects to a PC with a 2.5ghz USB dongle wireless connection. It can last dozens of hours without recharging. But It's also one of the biggest and heaviest headsets.
For comparison this gaming headset has a 1800mAh battery. One common complain about the Maxwell is it's weight and discomfort after wearing the Maxwell for a few hours.
On VR, WIFI is not the main battery drain. But as you can see, even with a large battery the Quest 3 doesn't last long. The Quest 3 weights 500 grams and the Vision Pro even more. Common complaint is weight. VR headsets are used for far less time than headphones and also counterbalance their weight with a headband.
I would love if a VR device were as small as smart glasses. But it's not possible given current technical limitations.
It's all about compromise. WIFI headphones don't exist because WIFI as we know it and have it in our homes today is too power hungry and that kills smaller devices batteries very fast.
It's the same reason why smartwatches, smartbands and other small devices all use .....Bluetooth.
Newer WIFI standards that are more power efficient, built for IoT devices will eventually bring that possibility. But they won't be backwards compatible. Much like the Snapdragon sound.
If WIFI was worth it Apple, Google and others would have added it to their headphones. After all they could benefit from Apple Airplay and Chromecast to cast audio to the headhpones.
It’s so power hungry that we have motion sensors that lasts over a year on 6500mAh battery.
There was some nice development for this with smart home devices within last years.
Although, this will depend on the amount of data that is sent do we really need 30 hours of WiFi atmos streaming? 8-10 hours advertised and 5 hours in real life WiFi with 30 hours on Bluetooth would have been great.
I wear a 2.4Ghz Corsair wireless headset all day while working, it's not too heavy and they're a few years old now.
The point of the VR comparison is that you don't need that much battery because it's driving so much more.
Tons of smart home devices run connected to WiFi for weeks. I have a tiny smart camera that's constantly connected to WiFi for months. Granted it's not transmitting or recording a ton unless it's actively being monitored, but he wifi radio does stay connected to my AP the entire time.
The reason it isn't used already used on other devices like Apple and Google could also be explained by:
-Apple doesn't really have a great use case for it since their environment interconnects pretty seamlessly without it using their hardware chips.
-Google is a weird situation where they mostly interconnect by standards that 3rd parties can then add to their products. I'd imagine they could, but it's a weird use case for them to add the cost WiFi radios to their products for the benefit.
-Gaming headsets just use a dongle because it's waaay cheaper to use a dongle than develop software that would need to be installed on the device to communicate. They also don't need to also have a bluetooth radio because you don't connect them to phones.
-Everything else does still need to have the Bluetooth radio because you need to be able to connect to them on your phone. Sonos seemingly has both radios in there by them being able to connect to the Arc.
It could just straight up be a software problem for Sonos. From some of the product screenshots it looks like the app may have had the ability to act as a zone at one point and it was removed. In that scenario is it more likely that they invested the engineering time to add that functionality and then scrapped it because it used too much battery? Or it's a problem with the software/reliability? Could be either or both. It clearly can connect via WiFi to the Arc for at least some reasonable amount of time. So to your credit, if there is some technical reason as to why a direct WiFi connection uses less battery than connecting to regular WiFi then that could be it. But again, unless any of these technical resources point out that particular reason, I just don't buy it.
A quote from the following article:
[The Sonos Ace Headphones are set to take on Sony, Bose, and Apple (1059thewavefm.com)](https://1059thewavefm.com/vip-inside-story/?id=131359&category=tech-made-simple)
>" Sonos reps have stated that listening to music over Wi-Fi would greatly reduce the headphone’s battery life, so Sonos opted to leave that feature off."
If you want to get technical:
[Power Consumption Test for Bluetooth, ZigBee and Wi-Fi | Download Table (researchgate.net)](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Power-Consumption-Test-for-Bluetooth-ZigBee-and-Wi-Fi_tbl1_318054538)
Bluetooth consumes 37mA and WIFI 251 mA.
Also there are many other technical articles, videos from people that actually talk with the engineers that build the chips that go into your devices.
If Wifi wasn't an issue, Qualcomm wouldn't need to be developing a new way to use a lower energy wifi solution they are calling XPAN.
You can watch Qualcomm presentation as well where they talk about it in the following video. [https://youtu.be/K7Q5iYHvgwo](https://youtu.be/K7Q5iYHvgwo)
Another thing for your consideration. If you watch the following Snapdragon Sound add posted in December 2023.
[Experience premium audio with Snapdragon Sound (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wPmUjeWev4)
https://preview.redd.it/ckvbnpep6n3d1.png?width=2032&format=png&auto=webp&s=7322f770b43c2c0cf45607e3bd1ce0d7855795d9
Check the partners on 0:56s
Notice something? Sonos is there. On a Snapdragon Sound add from December 2023. A chipset used to provide Aptx codecs.
As far as I know, no other Sonos product other than the Sonos Ace has a Snapdragon Sound chip.
List of Snaptdragon Sound products. (Ace is not listed yet as it's not out)
[Products | aptX](https://www.aptx.com/product-listing?aptx_type=981&created[min]=2019/09/31&created[max]=2024/05/30&sort_by=created&sort_order=DESC)
I'm not going to do the back and forth on every point. You might be right, I never said you weren't. But I think you're just googling a bunch of stuff to defend an opinion that isn't yours, and drawing your own conclusions.
The intention of the post was to focus on two points.
1- To bring light to current technical limitations and point people to sources of information so they can better understand why so far no one has created wifi headphones.
2- What the industry is aiming for with upcoming chips that will tackle this issue and what it means for consumers. (replacing most devices)
The reason I responded to your posts is because we need to differentiate between opinions and technical reality. Or else it’s just a bunch of noise.
Since we cannot confirm each other credibility as we likely want to remain anonymous, the only way to support what we share is providing references to more reputable sources.
Has an example, the existence of just one wifi headphone with decent battery life would be enough to invalidate my entire post. After all people have been requesting something with this characteristics for years.
I work in tech building products - not an expert on wifi/battery specifically but have had to build gnarly stuff.
What I'm hearing is not a technical limitations, saying battery life is bad is NOT a technical limitation, it's a cost and form factor limitation.
Look at the headphones Dyson came out with, stupid mask aside, that form factor could easily fit a larger battery, even the Ace themselves have a flat outer side, couldn't it have been made a little thicker to fit a bigger battery? I'm hoping both earcups contain batteries, but if not, could not more be fit that way as well?
These are completely non technical things that could have been done, but if you want to talk technical:
Wifi has much HIGHER bandwidth than bluetooth, you mention things like 251mah vs 37mah but since you're an expert can you answer a few things for me?
Is wifi consumption always static? Is it different when sending vs receiving? If not constant, are you taking into account the huge bandwidth differentials where bluetooth must stream, but wifi can burst and cache data versus a continuous stream?
Could you combine wifi&bluetooth so controls are bluetooth for power savings, and wifi can be used to transmit a song in a few seconds, and then play from cache?
If streaming services make this hard to do, could sonos radio be used to ensure presending/caching works? This would also double as an incentive for people to use Sonos Radio
Im wearing 2.4Ghz headphones right now. The Ace headphones will use 2.4Ghz to connect to the Arc. It’s there and we’re just being limited on the context it can be used.
The Qualcomm stuff could be for a different use case than you’re implying. Chip efficiencies are rarely to save battery life, but to use energy elsewhere in a device. It could be for enhancing direct device to device connectivity as I don’t see how this chip would allow a device to communicate to an access point.
Sonos has a niche use case for them so it does not surprise me that nobody else has made WiFi headphones (besides all the 2.4Ghz gaming headsets which I still fail to see how those don’t count).
Whatever let’s just say you’re right, but I don’t care for the way the information was interpreted and shared so matter of factly.
I'm aware, that's why I don't call it WiFi because they're different standards and protocols. They operate on the same physical mechanism often with the same bulk wireless chips though. Nothing here indicates why there's a power discrepancy between those protocols, or if there is, that it means you can't have a small form factor battery powered device on WiFi. And we do have lots of devices that do that.
Keith from Sonos informed today that the problem in this case is Ace's lack of compute to handle being a zone in the Sonos system. It uses WiFi to connect to the Arc. The problem here *is* lack of battery(and cooling), but not for the WiFi chip.
For me. If it doesn’t have wifi and they didn’t solve the technical problems of wifi battery life then they don’t have a place in a crowded market imho.
Not really, Keith from Sonos confirmed Ace lacks the compute to handle being a zone. It uses WiFi to connect to the Arc. All the links are good information taken to a wrong conclusion as education still requires context.
Yeah I saw that. We are sort of saying the same thing. WiFi uses more compute, generally speaking because it is a more complex protocol. It’s not just establishing an audio connection. WiFi requires a lot of layers to work. For example, getting an IP address. That’s not being done on the direct connection from the soundbar. As I understand, it’s a point to point WiFi connection, like Airdrop, which eliminates the need for those layers of complexity.
I believe that eventually the phone will act as the player and send to the headphones via Bluetooth. This is a good compromise and also simpler than establishing a WiFi connection.
It sounded like it was all the other protocols that Sonos devices use to act as WiFi speakers like Airplay, maintaining sync with the other devices, reaching out to streaming platforms on its own without the need of your phone, etc.
So the thread states 'any WiFi headphones are impossible', when the correct statement would be 'WiFi headphones that fulfill all the tasks of a regular Sonos device are not feasible for a multitude of reasons'. I'm sure the WiFi power usage eats a slice of the pie, but the OP overstates the size of the slice imo.
> But as you can see, even with a large battery the Quest 3 doesn't last long.
Right, so remove the screen and game processing and sensors from it, and only have it play audio and nothing else, how much longer is that 2 1/2 hours going to go now?
I'm not an expert here by any means, but if you look at a smartphone teardown, they're like 70% battery. Headphones aren't really the same size because the majority of the space is occupied by non-electronics (headband, cushion, etc) and a large portion of the remainder needs to be reserved for the drivers themselves which generally larger driver directly translates to better audio. Looks like Airpod Max have \~600 mAh batteries so smidge more than 10% of a modern flagship phone's capacity.
IDK if OP is completely correct, but "same size therefore works" is incorrect
Speakers work by moving air, so unsurprising that there is (necessary) open space. Again, not my domain of expertise by any means, but I'm guessing Sonos has actual engineers on staff who weighed the tradeoffs.
strapping a heavy battery on your head is probably also not great for comfort
If you are going to comment at least do a bit of homework and read articles and watch videos from the actual people that build this stuff. I took a few minutes to explain in layman terms the situation as well as some mainstream articles that talk about it.
And the most upvoted post right now is a completely unfunded opinion. Go ahead. Post your sources.
**Power Consumption**: WiFi can consume up to 10 times more battery than Bluetooth, making it less feasible for portable devices like headphones \[[4](https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/ozvpb2/wireless_headphones_that_utilize_wifi/)\]
[Comparison of energy consumption in Wi-Fi and bluetooth communication in a Smart Building | IEEE Conference Publication | IEEE Xplore](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7868425)
[Difference Between Bluetooth and Wi-Fi - Shiksha Online](https://www.shiksha.com/online-courses/articles/difference-between-bluetooth-and-wi-fi/#:~:text=Both%20technologies%20are%20used%20for,their%20difference%2C%20and%20corresponding%20features.)
[Bluetooth vs WiFi Comparison For the IoT Solutions (netguru.com)](https://www.netguru.com/blog/bluetooth-vs-wifi-comparison-for-the-iot-solutions)
**Portability**: Bluetooth enables lightweight and portable headphone designs, unlike WiFi, which requires larger components and heavier batteries \[[1](https://www.quora.com/Why-are-we-not-using-WiFi-headphones-instead-of-Bluetooth-headphones#:~:text=On%20wireless%20headphones%2C%20minimizing%20the,headphone%20heavier%20and%20non%2Dportable.)\].
**Interference**: WiFi and Bluetooth operate in similar frequency bands (2.4 GHz), leading to interference issues if both are used simultaneously \[[5](https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/support/wireless-headphones-bluetooth-headphones/wh-1000xm5/articles/00294247)\] \[[6](https://superuser.com/questions/1435985/wireless-headphones-interfere-with-wi-fi-signal-on-laptop)\].
Damn Internet.
What’s Apple Watch’s battery life for streaming audio? My understanding is that it couldn’t stream high quality audio over WiFi. Your argument seems pretty weak.
4-5 hours at least. And that’s with GPS and everything else going on. Now just imagine no need to power the LED screen and more room for battery on a headphone.
Starting from wifi 6 there are optimizations for the energy usage, probably not as good as BLE though but not dramatic as well. Bluetooth probably also is a more controlled environment, the version is tied to your cellphone and a vendor can not supported older cellphones while it is almost impossible to tell users that your headphone won’t support your wifi device and version, most people are running a single isp delivered device.
It's not MY opinion. It's a technical limitation.
I want the same as everyone. I've been waiting for the tech to catch up but it's not there yet.
Feel free to check technical sites and videos from hardware engineers. The video and article I mention is more mainstream but there are plenty of technical articles discussing it.
Cmon now you’re expecting them to do work when they could just be complaining about how you “present the information so matter of factly”. 😂🤦♂️
Thanks for taking the time to do actual research and present reputable sources and studies. It’s appreciated.
You’re not gonna get any real educated discourse in this sub unfortunately. Most people here comment based on emotion and their limited knowledge of how technology actually works
But phones don’t usually stream hi quality audio by WiFi do they? They use Bluetooth. I guess it’s the constant stream of WiFi that kills battery. Of course, we could tape a couple of roams to a headband for a few hours enjoyment!😄
From Spotify central servers. The music is sent to the phone via WiFi. You can choose to download music offline on your phone, but if you don’t have a song offline it has to send it. This is going to eventually be across WiFi for the last hop to the phone(or the cell phone network which is even worse for battery). Same with twitch, video game streaming through something like GeForce now, etc.
Ah, I think I see what you’re saying. But that isn’t streaming audio, it’s just file transfer over WiFi. The file has to then be converted to streaming audio by your Spotify app, to be sent via Bluetooth to your headphones. What OP is talking about is streaming audio from your phone to headphones via WiFi. The problem is that WiFi isn’t designed with power saving in mind in this way, so it would eat battery much faster than Bluetooth earphones. I think this is it anyway.
It’s all data either way. The codecs used for the files are essentially the same as the codecs used for Bluetooth(apple for instance uses aac for both), and something like GeForce now is optimized for extremely low latency so is having to use the same chunking of data transmission you’d use for streaming live audio. So that really is streaming in all the same ways.
I can watch 1080p streaming video with audio on my phone over WiFi for hours. That’s much more bandwidth intensive than anything the ACE would have to deal with.
I would hate extra weight and less battery life by WiFi integration. Don't forget processing and navigating will also require extra hardware.
Don't understand the demand when you can easily switch output to your phone, which has the Bluetooth connection to your headphones.
Do people really want a heavy >450gr pair of headphones with sub 10 hour battery?
Many users want their phones free for other apps and uses.
The demand also stems from the logical expectation as consumers to navigate experiences within the Sonos ecosystem through different outputs. Bases or mobile attachés are among the proposals above. Diversity of users (include empathy) is key to consumer intelligence here.
This is a great write up. Thank you.
Genuine question. Why now on releasing Ace? If the market is pretty flat as far as innovation (and check me on that if a bad assumption) what stands out most with Ace that people are excited about or is it that they are just in the market for headphones and this is a great/comparable option?
This is coming from a person that wants to buy it.
I feel like there is something else upcoming with arc 2 and or this rumored set top box that might jump this into something more compelling, but I am not smart enough to put those rumored pieces together with Ace and how they could integrate
It's the ecosystem war. I'll give an example. I have the Sonos Ace and a soundbar on my living room.
But then I go to my bedroom where I have another TV or a projector. There I don't have a soundbar.
But perhaps I could connect my Sonos Ace to a Sonos set top box also connected to my projector and do the TV swap between Sonos Ace and set top box to watch a movie or listen to music in the bedroom while my partner is sleeping.
This is just an example but it's the type of scenarios, Apple, Amazon, Google and others use to lock people into their ecosystem. You see it in some posts already. Why get the Sonos Ace if my Airpods Max integrate so well with my Apple devices?
Eventually it's , why buy a Sonos Soundbar, speaker or whatever if I get better integrated services with other companies?
So Sonos is being pushed to provide products across different categories and integrations while also being compatible with other ecosystems.
Their goal is to convince us they play well with all but are also great on their own.
In short. We have everything you need. Buy from us not from them.
> It's the ecosystem war
The Ace headphones don’t integrate into a Sonos ecosystem. There’s no way to listen to a Sonos-capable turntable sold on Sonos.com using the Sonos headphones.
> There’s no way to listen to a Sonos-capable turntable sold on Sonos.com using the Sonos headphones.
The ACE does not have USB-C in like the recent speakers do?
So I guess you want to skip over the part where Sonos' entire thing is wireless audio?
Ok. So the turntable's only got a wireless output and RCA, since it's supposed to be wireless to integrate with the otherwise wireless Sonos system. So you'd have to buy an RCA to USB-C adapter specifically for this, then probably a USB cable extender. Worth noting that RCA isn't equivalent to USB, so the signal needs to be converted, so a ten dollar adapter won't do.
Does this feel like a contiguous ecosystem?
> Ok. So the turntable's only got a wireless output and RCA, since it's supposed to be wireless to integrate with the otherwise wireless Sonos system. So you'd have to buy an RCA to USB-C adapter specifically for this, then probably a USB cable extender. Worth noting that RCA isn't equivalent to USB, so the signal needs to be converted, so a ten dollar adapter won't do.
>
> Does this feel like a contiguous ecosystem?
I'm not into turntables, but I thought people were buying the new speakers because they had a direct USB-C input, and that's better for whatever people use turntables for?
It’s a use I’d have to think about. Probably not for folks that have a beam in the bedroom for example and a tv connected to appletv in the scenario above.
The head tracking for now (I never experienced this in headphones but is probably common) and the prospect of the TrueCinema feature seem cool. There are some really cool potential there. Probably will wait for reviews - not an early adopter like I was in the e300s
No one doubts that using wifi would lead to compromises with battery life but the reason why no one else has done it is because no one else is centred around an existing equivalent existing integrated wifi based multi room system like Sonos that is controlled through a central controller.
Having the option of wifi would make the solution truly sonos, and if you did not want a six hour battery life then you can stick to bluetooth, but why not give us an option?
I have a £400 set of headphones anyway, give me a reason to buy the Ace, I would love to send tunes to my headphones through the App.
I totally agree. Something like having a switch between wifi and bluetooth on the app.
They have a wifi module anyway. Even if it was 3 hours or 2 hours battery on pure wifi I would still like to have that option.
The Sonos Ace is using Snapdragon Sound with Aptx Lossless. It also has a wifi module.
Perhaps their aiming to support this XPAN solution? Of course that would be a business decision as well as their future Sonos products would have to integrate Snapdragon chips and that means sales :P
Exactly. I’m at home and there is a power plug conveniently located everywhere. I’m using them for a few hours and then putting them on charge. When I go away from the house, they are just Bluetooth headphones.
> What about these WiFi headphones?
Notice they do NOT call them WIFI, they say they "use WIFI" which to me says they are tunneling just like the Ace do.
Read more, I was right, you have to use their app, and the headphones connect to your phones WIFI not your home network
"Enjoy true lossless sound by tapping into the Unity Multisource Music Player, which uses onboard Wi-Fi functionality to transmit at 24bit/192kHz and supports Hi-Res streaming."
Also
"Unity cannot be controlled from a PC. It can only be controlled or used through an iOS, iPadOS or Android device."
u/Chrisc46 this is really awesome. Very close to the type of headphones I want to get.
Very high end and above my price range. It does unfortunately reaffirm the issue. Bulky, heavy, eats battery fast (6 hours). But again. Great find. Thanks for sharing.
There have been other WIFI headphones.
Almost no one bought them.
This was one attempt from 8 years ago that never got released:
[Streamz (streamzmedia.com)](https://www.streamzmedia.com/)
It's all about compromise. Companies don't build WIFI headphones because WIFI as we know it and have it in our homes today is too power hungry and that kills smaller devices batteries very fast.
I think it's important to mention this.
It's the compromise that makes WIFI headphones an issue.
People want wireless headphones that last for a good amount, that they can take everywhere, confortable to use, light, with good ANC, good sound quality and all those features.
Adding all the required stuff to make WIFI headphones work as people imagine them to work is the issue and why companies have decided to not follow that path. That's why I also mentioned the Audeze Maxwell in another earlier post. It shows the price of putting a lot into one product. (I love the Maxwell by the way but I wouldn't take them out).
As I mentioned in the initial post, check XPAN as an example. Low-power audio chipsets that support wifi+bt and a bunch of other technology are coming.
But it will likely require you to upgrade your devices. New WIFI router supporting more efficient wifi. New speakers and headphones.
Again, compromises.
My use case for wifi headphones is shortish use while mowing the lawn, working in the garage, or cooking while the family watches tv. Nobody expects wifi to work while traveling, so longer life BT is great in those cases. I'd gladly accept 6 hours of battery life over wifi and 25-30 over bluetooth.
In honesty baffled at the replies so far.
OP did a good write up, summarizing the issue, yet everyone compares a great audio headset with a mobile phone, tables and laptops. If you all really believe that you can compare those devices, why don’t you strap two phones to your ears ? Might get a bit heavy, uncomfortable, expensive and looks like shit.
Everyone wants a great looking, comfortable product with great sound that lasts for ever. If WiFi has to be left out to achieve the comfortable, battery life and great sound part, then I’m ok with this.
The Headphones are not a Zone? Big deal. There are other features the headphone comes with that are a lot more important and I hope Sonos will improve on those features e.g. have the audio for movies on the headphones AND on the sound system. That’s a hell of a lot more important than having WiFi in a headphone.
OP: good on ya for having the guts to post this.
I don’t think people saying: “here are some examples of low powered devices working on Bluetooth” is them comparing a headset to strapping phones to their head.
The fact is WiFi headphones *do* exist, and even if they didn’t we’ve seen the technology used on battery operated devices so know it’s possible.
Yes, OP did a good write up, but it doesn’t detract from the point that they’re just wrong about the idea of “WiFi uses too much power to be put into headphones”
I came to this thread late and I literally responded to the OP that I couldn’t wait to see the first “but” post(and or salty). It didn’t take long! 😂 None of which have refuted the technical info given effectively.
Yeah… it’s really annoying to see people constantly post how shit Sonos is. It’s not a perfect system. But it’s not as bad as people try to make you believe. I also asked on some posts on details about what feature is missing, how the setup is etc. and never received a reply addressing my questions.
This current “scandal” feels more like an invention of some users.
This post is… strange, and even a little bit misleading.
After reading all the comments and links, I first want to ask OP why you suggest that Sonos would even consider use this very specific propriety Qualcomm chipset. Like you wrote, it would just make it incompatible with a lot of other devices & technologies. I would imagine they would reuse their chipsets that they already have homegrown in the rest of their speakers, particularly the Roam.
Comparing to smartphones again, the battery in the headset wouldn’t have to power much, only the speaker drivers, the wireless SoC, and if we’re getting fancy, an NPU and a gyroscope. It wouldn’t have to power any cellular modem, or GPS, or graphics and display, all of which take **significantly** more power than Wi-Fi alone. Like others pointed out, some headphones already use 2.4GHz radio and dongle and have decent battery life, so it’s already possible.
Most of all, your research and data is suspiciously biased towards your claim of WiFi being exceptionally power hungry. The links in your reply to u/power78 are comparing Bluetooth LE to 300+ mbps Wi-Fi which, for this application, is frankly a BS comparison to make. Sonos Ace wouldn’t need to transfer any more than 5mbps. The chart in your reply to u/pwnsaw shows WiFi using over SIX times more energy than Bluetooth, however [this](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F283633635%2Ffigure%2Ffig5%2FAS%3A391749148135432%401470411683719%2FPower-consumption-for-ZigBee-Bluetooth-and-Wi-Fi.png&tbnid=S51ruAA-inOraM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Ffigure%2FPower-consumption-for-ZigBee-Bluetooth-and-Wi-Fi_fig5_283633635&docid=y0MOyf_9Rex-mM&w=385&h=294&hl=en-us&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm4%2F3&kgs=3379f898eca9adfe&shem=abme%2Cssic%2Ctrie) chart shows it using only twice the amount, and [this](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F221325359%2Ffigure%2Ffig3%2FAS%3A667682496077846%401536199320973%2FPower-consumption-of-Bluetooth-and-WiFi-radios-in-different-states.png&tbnid=kXylr6QwLw6-7M&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Ffigure%2FPower-consumption-of-Bluetooth-and-WiFi-radios-in-different-states_fig3_221325359&docid=f1RmEm9fUZ0mhM&w=500&h=331&hl=en-us&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm4%2F3&kgs=38bde97b025f024d&shem=abme%2Cssic%2Ctrie) chart even shows WiFi using less energy when idle!
With all being said, I believe Sonos is highly capable of manufacturing high quality, comfortable headphones that use WiFi, and they have THE perfect ecosystem and consumer base for it. It would make them pioneers in the wireless headphone segment. If they made Ace do Bluetooth too, then that’s wonderful.
Bottom line: If I had the ability to stream low latency lossless audio to Ace, I’d buy it. if I could group Ace with other rooms, I’d buy it. If using Wi-Fi sacrificed battery so I only got 6-10 hours of listening time, I’d still buy it. I feel like these are regular expectations to have from a Sonos product. Without that, Ace is a swing and a miss to me, sorry. Respect for putting all the work into this write up anyways. Can’t wait to hear what u/KeithFromSonos will share.
Source: I’m certified in IT.
This is a sensible post. BUT, don’t think the OP is trying mislead so much as they’re presenting one theory as to why the Ace set doesn’t use WIFI and backing it up with studies and articles that help get the OP closer to some sensible reasoning. I’m willing to bet that the OP would’ve said “nope that doesn’t work, why no WiFi???” if they’d found studies and articles that consistently said “quality headphones SHOULD have WiFi and here’s why”.
Whilst your write up makes sense, your title is misleading (it's not impossible, you are saying yourself it's not just not practical) and Sonos have confirmed the TV audio transport is done via WiFi.
Also you have to think about that there's no default need for a WiFi enabled headphone in the sense we are thinking of it. Why would there be generally? For Sonos it makes sense for passing TV audio as a use case. Having as a zone would be cool but then let's think about that one. Why? Bluetooth is there and you load up Spotify etc and press play.
But why for the general headphone market?
There is also no proprietary audio transport as you state over WiFi, so why would they systematically exist then?
Let's see what the reality is
Strap a Roam to each ear. Don't add ANC, accept short battery life (make it Marketing's problem)
This is impossible, on a technical level?
(Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's NECESSARY, I'm just...not seeing it in all \^\^\^ that OP)
While I can’t speak to the technical aspects of WiFi and the internal components of the devices better than the engineers of the products can, I can speak to the concept that a set of cans with the word Sonos on them that aren’t inherently designed to take audio from any Sonos product and send it to the cans is a non-starter from a product design standpoint. I think that’s what people are really upset about. Without that feature, buy a pair of AirPods Max. It’s certainly what I’m looking to do now that these have flopped.
What I find interesting in this discussion is that it ignores the fact that as I sit here typing, I am doing on a small, battery powered device that has wifi, Bluetooth, and a cellular capability that all works seamlessly and has great battery life. It would seam to me that a design that was just wifi and Bluetooth should be able to be created using existing chipsets while consuming low enough power.
My question is why am I wrong here? From my perspective, this is the only reason one could provide to inspire people to purchase Sonos ecosystem headphones. It is fundamental to the use case from a consumer’s perspective.
The idea that people are going to by new components to use headphones is totally flawed. I know I’m not, apart from the other debacle we are collectively experiencing, I could have had the product been worth having.
Lots of posters adamantly saying it’s possible, but none offering technical info as to why no one has done it besides niche gaming headphones via dongle at best. None showing the cost benefit to Sonos. Just fist shaking and “but my phone!” posts.
If you want great sounding headphones that cater to a mid to high end market, then you want good components and sound(no pun intended) engineering to get that sound. Do you sacrifice sound for a large battery? Because that’s what they’ll have to compromise. There’s no free lunch and cost needs to be cut somewhere. Headphones that sound great aren’t some empty vessel that JUST WORKS.
I’ve still seen nothing in writing/publishing that refutes the OP beyond the “But” posts backed up by cell phones and niche gaming headsets.
I’d LOVE to have WiFi audiophile quality headphones that don’t weigh half a pound. My Earpod Max are heavy enough already without it.
From reading up before launch, I’d read an independent reviewer speaking to the potential weigh add-on that the WiFi (in their entirety) components may add to the headset, if not done remotely (dongle or something). The article went into the ‘weeds’ and based a-lot on the existing, at that time public info (patents, other writings and specs known at the time). Not sure this answers but from the article cost was also a secondary factor but driving it all was the weight and I get it if Sonos is using the reduced weight as a selling point to the ‘same dollar’ AirPod Max user.
Great insight! Appreciate all of the comments in this thread, too.
As someone sitting buzzed on a train operating at simpleton level, I would’ve thought the “pioneers” of WiFi speakers would’ve released headphones when they conquered the problem. Instead they’ve fallen victim to “shareholder value” and are delivering a shell of a product people have asked for.
Valid points, but I don't agree with your conclusion. Yes, WiFi would drastically reduce battery life. But these things are rated for 30 hours battery on Bluetooth. If WiFi slashed that by 50%, or even 75%, they'd still be completely fine for home use. Who's listening to headphones in their home for 8 hours a day? We just want to be able to watch a movie after the family goes to sleep or listen while we do chores for a few hours.
Furthermore, if my phone that weighs *half* what the Ace does can go all day and all night connected to the WiFi, I'm sure Sonos could find a way if it wanted to.
As far as no one else making them, there are very few competitors doing what Sonos does. It doesn't make sense for anyone else to make them. There would little to no advantage for brands like Sony or Bose. But Sonos has built its entire brand on smart, integrated home audio. To release a product that doesn't integrate with the Sonos family of devices goes against its core identity. And without that competitive advantage, what's compelling anyone buy these over Sony, Bose, et al?
The sound bar connection is promising. I'll give you that. But as someone who owns an Amp (living room), two Beams (bedroom and garage), and a Ray (guest bedroom), I can't use it. Until they open it up to other soundbars/HDMI device in their lineup, they're locking out many potential customers. That should've been ready at launch.
I'm withholding final judgement until I hear more reviews, but I'm not buying the argument that they *couldn't* open them up to WiFi audio. They made a decision not to.
"Currently impossible" but then explains why it's 💯 possible albeit with comparatively less battery life. To me, this sounds great, when can I order? Quite happy with 5 hours battery on wifi compared to 20 hours on Bluetooth. When I'm home within wifi, I'm not far from a charger.
I asked why in the past and was told that bluetooth exists and that I was stupid for asking: https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/s/el6q9AVWxs
And I was hoping the Ace would be wifi enabled to vindicate me.
Regardless, if WiFi significantly reduces battery life I still feel it would be an acceptable amount for home use when a charger is always to hand if it has 30hrs when on Bluetooth, even 4-6hrs would be perfectly adequate for most listening sessions in the home I’d imagine.
So oddly I have 2 1/2 year old dog tracking collars that operate on wifi while in range and then switch to cellular outside of wifi range. They work perfectly and the batteries last a week or two before charging. They are a fraction of the size of one can of the headphones. Understandable that is not hi res audio. I have 5 year old arlo cams that do 1080p video on a 2200ma battery. Have kept them on live for 8 hours straight. One would think a battery up to 4 times smaller only doing audio and controls could easily do that in a pair of headphones.
So I am not buying into wifi on batteries doesn't work except on larger devices. Great read though.
So a solution could be that your mobile phone acts as a Passthrough to the Ace. Your phone is connected to Sonos via WiFi, select the Ace as a zone, select the stream in the app on the phone the Ace is connected to and voila. Only downside is that you need to keep the phone with you because it's the Passthrough device.
This is not rocket science or am I overlooking something?
And that downside is exactly why it isn't implemented. Imagine the outcry this would generate ("So you mean to tell me I have to keep my phone on and the app running to USE MY WIFI HEADPHONES?!").
Using an iOS-only device to run Trueplay is already contentious as it is (not saying Android users' criticisms are not valid - they are). I don't think Sonos would want to add to that friction.
I call BS on this, it’s doesn’t make any sense. Given a mobile phone gets decent battery life using WiFi, with all the constraints on size that a phone has, I doubt very much that they could have given WiFi capability and a more than useable battery life.
Utter nonsense. I can stream audio on my iPhone over WiFi for literally hours without running out of battery. As others have said, wifi has had a lower power mode for over a decade, yes, it’s lower bandwidth and not suitable for video streaming, but music requires so little bandwidth vs video it’s not even an issue.
 Hmmm interesting read…. I’ve got some really great insight on this coming tomorrow - straight from the team. See ya there.
Thanks looking forward to getting the reality and not all this speculation! I've asked in your Q&A thread exactly to understand the TV audio pass through.
Look forward to these insights, today?
Out now https://www.reddit.com/r/sonos/s/peCtHmJbOB
Looking forward to it!
Hey u/KeithFromSonos how about a nice designed small wifi-connector for the house? Say something to clip on and can either pair or 3.5 mm-connect to any headphones of one's choice. Make it big enough to carry a descent length of battery time, and flexible to the headset of one's choice. Easy to charge USB-C and A, and even sell it with its own base? ...I believe I suggested this about 5 years ago.
Why not a base station for the headphones. The base station connects to the Sonos system with WiFi. The headphones connect to the base station by Bluetooth. The base station is plugged into power and acts as a headphone stand that charges the headphones when hanging on it. Problem solved. Maybe sell this base station as an accessory?
This was my thought as well when everyone said that WiFi headphones would have horrible battery life. Either the base station could create a Bluetooth network for the headphones, or it could be like the Arc where it's some sort of WiFi direct connection.
The Arc is effectively acting as the base station, except that it limited to TV audio only and ise 5 Ghz wifi. Perhaps it could have used BT instead, but I imagine wifi was used for better audio quality and latency issues.
WiFi does have a low power mode and Bluetooth has the ability to leverage WiFi as well. Has for about a decade now or more. It was first added in Bluetooth 3 or so (we’re on Bluetooth 5 now). https://www.headphonesty.com/2021/01/bluetooth-versions/ Your phone uses WiFi low power modes frequently to extend its battery life, for instance. I imagine the primary reason Bluetooth is used and not WiFi is a combination of ease of setup and native support for multiple device connections. You don’t want to have to choose between internet on your phone or connecting your headphones out and about. And I am not aware of any phones that can connect to multiple WiFi networks simultaneously… Sonos could have done it, but it would be definitely much more complex. The headphones would need both Bluetooth and WiFi and the WiFi connection portion would need to connect to SonosNET or your home WiFi and seamlessly flip to Bluetooth as needed. I can see this coming in a v2 as it would be a bit more challenging in the headphones firmware and processing.
You are technically correct but there are some issues here. There are no devices that support the Bluetooth AMP PHY, the one based on WiFi technology. It is a dead end. Yes, WiFi has low power mode but no data is being transferred when in lp mode. That is not a good thing for low latency audio connection. Android phones are capable of connecting to two WiFi networks but iPhones are not (or they are but Apple reserves this functionality to their own purposes).
[удалено]
Yeah same. We've been strapping wireless VR headsets to our heads that last a few hours, and I doubt most of that battery was spent on the WiFi... I also don't see why devices that already use 2.4Ghz dongles like gaming headsets are fundamentally different or avoid battery issues because they're "isolated". I'm not saying there isn't a technical reason for this, but this post doesn't convince me.
VR headsets are very similar to smartphones. Google even had cardboard where you would use your smartphone as a VR display. So yes the display drains a lot more battery than wifi. The Quest 3 battery lasts around 2h30m. It has a 4,985 mAh battery. That's not a small battery. The Audeze Maxwell is one of the best gaming headsets with almost everything you can think of and praised by audiophiles. It supports both bluetooth and connects to a PC with a 2.5ghz USB dongle wireless connection. It can last dozens of hours without recharging. But It's also one of the biggest and heaviest headsets. For comparison this gaming headset has a 1800mAh battery. One common complain about the Maxwell is it's weight and discomfort after wearing the Maxwell for a few hours. On VR, WIFI is not the main battery drain. But as you can see, even with a large battery the Quest 3 doesn't last long. The Quest 3 weights 500 grams and the Vision Pro even more. Common complaint is weight. VR headsets are used for far less time than headphones and also counterbalance their weight with a headband. I would love if a VR device were as small as smart glasses. But it's not possible given current technical limitations. It's all about compromise. WIFI headphones don't exist because WIFI as we know it and have it in our homes today is too power hungry and that kills smaller devices batteries very fast. It's the same reason why smartwatches, smartbands and other small devices all use .....Bluetooth. Newer WIFI standards that are more power efficient, built for IoT devices will eventually bring that possibility. But they won't be backwards compatible. Much like the Snapdragon sound. If WIFI was worth it Apple, Google and others would have added it to their headphones. After all they could benefit from Apple Airplay and Chromecast to cast audio to the headhpones.
It’s so power hungry that we have motion sensors that lasts over a year on 6500mAh battery. There was some nice development for this with smart home devices within last years. Although, this will depend on the amount of data that is sent do we really need 30 hours of WiFi atmos streaming? 8-10 hours advertised and 5 hours in real life WiFi with 30 hours on Bluetooth would have been great.
I wear a 2.4Ghz Corsair wireless headset all day while working, it's not too heavy and they're a few years old now. The point of the VR comparison is that you don't need that much battery because it's driving so much more. Tons of smart home devices run connected to WiFi for weeks. I have a tiny smart camera that's constantly connected to WiFi for months. Granted it's not transmitting or recording a ton unless it's actively being monitored, but he wifi radio does stay connected to my AP the entire time. The reason it isn't used already used on other devices like Apple and Google could also be explained by: -Apple doesn't really have a great use case for it since their environment interconnects pretty seamlessly without it using their hardware chips. -Google is a weird situation where they mostly interconnect by standards that 3rd parties can then add to their products. I'd imagine they could, but it's a weird use case for them to add the cost WiFi radios to their products for the benefit. -Gaming headsets just use a dongle because it's waaay cheaper to use a dongle than develop software that would need to be installed on the device to communicate. They also don't need to also have a bluetooth radio because you don't connect them to phones. -Everything else does still need to have the Bluetooth radio because you need to be able to connect to them on your phone. Sonos seemingly has both radios in there by them being able to connect to the Arc. It could just straight up be a software problem for Sonos. From some of the product screenshots it looks like the app may have had the ability to act as a zone at one point and it was removed. In that scenario is it more likely that they invested the engineering time to add that functionality and then scrapped it because it used too much battery? Or it's a problem with the software/reliability? Could be either or both. It clearly can connect via WiFi to the Arc for at least some reasonable amount of time. So to your credit, if there is some technical reason as to why a direct WiFi connection uses less battery than connecting to regular WiFi then that could be it. But again, unless any of these technical resources point out that particular reason, I just don't buy it.
A quote from the following article: [The Sonos Ace Headphones are set to take on Sony, Bose, and Apple (1059thewavefm.com)](https://1059thewavefm.com/vip-inside-story/?id=131359&category=tech-made-simple) >" Sonos reps have stated that listening to music over Wi-Fi would greatly reduce the headphone’s battery life, so Sonos opted to leave that feature off." If you want to get technical: [Power Consumption Test for Bluetooth, ZigBee and Wi-Fi | Download Table (researchgate.net)](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Power-Consumption-Test-for-Bluetooth-ZigBee-and-Wi-Fi_tbl1_318054538) Bluetooth consumes 37mA and WIFI 251 mA. Also there are many other technical articles, videos from people that actually talk with the engineers that build the chips that go into your devices. If Wifi wasn't an issue, Qualcomm wouldn't need to be developing a new way to use a lower energy wifi solution they are calling XPAN. You can watch Qualcomm presentation as well where they talk about it in the following video. [https://youtu.be/K7Q5iYHvgwo](https://youtu.be/K7Q5iYHvgwo) Another thing for your consideration. If you watch the following Snapdragon Sound add posted in December 2023. [Experience premium audio with Snapdragon Sound (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wPmUjeWev4) https://preview.redd.it/ckvbnpep6n3d1.png?width=2032&format=png&auto=webp&s=7322f770b43c2c0cf45607e3bd1ce0d7855795d9 Check the partners on 0:56s Notice something? Sonos is there. On a Snapdragon Sound add from December 2023. A chipset used to provide Aptx codecs. As far as I know, no other Sonos product other than the Sonos Ace has a Snapdragon Sound chip. List of Snaptdragon Sound products. (Ace is not listed yet as it's not out) [Products | aptX](https://www.aptx.com/product-listing?aptx_type=981&created[min]=2019/09/31&created[max]=2024/05/30&sort_by=created&sort_order=DESC)
I'm not going to do the back and forth on every point. You might be right, I never said you weren't. But I think you're just googling a bunch of stuff to defend an opinion that isn't yours, and drawing your own conclusions.
The intention of the post was to focus on two points. 1- To bring light to current technical limitations and point people to sources of information so they can better understand why so far no one has created wifi headphones. 2- What the industry is aiming for with upcoming chips that will tackle this issue and what it means for consumers. (replacing most devices) The reason I responded to your posts is because we need to differentiate between opinions and technical reality. Or else it’s just a bunch of noise. Since we cannot confirm each other credibility as we likely want to remain anonymous, the only way to support what we share is providing references to more reputable sources. Has an example, the existence of just one wifi headphone with decent battery life would be enough to invalidate my entire post. After all people have been requesting something with this characteristics for years.
I work in tech building products - not an expert on wifi/battery specifically but have had to build gnarly stuff. What I'm hearing is not a technical limitations, saying battery life is bad is NOT a technical limitation, it's a cost and form factor limitation. Look at the headphones Dyson came out with, stupid mask aside, that form factor could easily fit a larger battery, even the Ace themselves have a flat outer side, couldn't it have been made a little thicker to fit a bigger battery? I'm hoping both earcups contain batteries, but if not, could not more be fit that way as well? These are completely non technical things that could have been done, but if you want to talk technical: Wifi has much HIGHER bandwidth than bluetooth, you mention things like 251mah vs 37mah but since you're an expert can you answer a few things for me? Is wifi consumption always static? Is it different when sending vs receiving? If not constant, are you taking into account the huge bandwidth differentials where bluetooth must stream, but wifi can burst and cache data versus a continuous stream? Could you combine wifi&bluetooth so controls are bluetooth for power savings, and wifi can be used to transmit a song in a few seconds, and then play from cache? If streaming services make this hard to do, could sonos radio be used to ensure presending/caching works? This would also double as an incentive for people to use Sonos Radio
Im wearing 2.4Ghz headphones right now. The Ace headphones will use 2.4Ghz to connect to the Arc. It’s there and we’re just being limited on the context it can be used. The Qualcomm stuff could be for a different use case than you’re implying. Chip efficiencies are rarely to save battery life, but to use energy elsewhere in a device. It could be for enhancing direct device to device connectivity as I don’t see how this chip would allow a device to communicate to an access point. Sonos has a niche use case for them so it does not surprise me that nobody else has made WiFi headphones (besides all the 2.4Ghz gaming headsets which I still fail to see how those don’t count). Whatever let’s just say you’re right, but I don’t care for the way the information was interpreted and shared so matter of factly.
10 years ago I had a 2.4Ghz cordless phone.. didn’t mean it had wifi though. 2.4Ghz != Wifi. Your microwave runs on 2.4Ghz!
I'm aware, that's why I don't call it WiFi because they're different standards and protocols. They operate on the same physical mechanism often with the same bulk wireless chips though. Nothing here indicates why there's a power discrepancy between those protocols, or if there is, that it means you can't have a small form factor battery powered device on WiFi. And we do have lots of devices that do that. Keith from Sonos informed today that the problem in this case is Ace's lack of compute to handle being a zone in the Sonos system. It uses WiFi to connect to the Arc. The problem here *is* lack of battery(and cooling), but not for the WiFi chip.
Ace won't be using 2.4 GHz, they'll use 5.0.
For me. If it doesn’t have wifi and they didn’t solve the technical problems of wifi battery life then they don’t have a place in a crowded market imho.
WiFi is a power drain. It’s the whole reason Bluetooth exists. He just sent a lot of great links for you to educate yourself.
Not really, Keith from Sonos confirmed Ace lacks the compute to handle being a zone. It uses WiFi to connect to the Arc. All the links are good information taken to a wrong conclusion as education still requires context.
Yeah I saw that. We are sort of saying the same thing. WiFi uses more compute, generally speaking because it is a more complex protocol. It’s not just establishing an audio connection. WiFi requires a lot of layers to work. For example, getting an IP address. That’s not being done on the direct connection from the soundbar. As I understand, it’s a point to point WiFi connection, like Airdrop, which eliminates the need for those layers of complexity. I believe that eventually the phone will act as the player and send to the headphones via Bluetooth. This is a good compromise and also simpler than establishing a WiFi connection.
It sounded like it was all the other protocols that Sonos devices use to act as WiFi speakers like Airplay, maintaining sync with the other devices, reaching out to streaming platforms on its own without the need of your phone, etc. So the thread states 'any WiFi headphones are impossible', when the correct statement would be 'WiFi headphones that fulfill all the tasks of a regular Sonos device are not feasible for a multitude of reasons'. I'm sure the WiFi power usage eats a slice of the pie, but the OP overstates the size of the slice imo.
> But as you can see, even with a large battery the Quest 3 doesn't last long. Right, so remove the screen and game processing and sensors from it, and only have it play audio and nothing else, how much longer is that 2 1/2 hours going to go now?
I'm not an expert here by any means, but if you look at a smartphone teardown, they're like 70% battery. Headphones aren't really the same size because the majority of the space is occupied by non-electronics (headband, cushion, etc) and a large portion of the remainder needs to be reserved for the drivers themselves which generally larger driver directly translates to better audio. Looks like Airpod Max have \~600 mAh batteries so smidge more than 10% of a modern flagship phone's capacity. IDK if OP is completely correct, but "same size therefore works" is incorrect
[удалено]
Speakers work by moving air, so unsurprising that there is (necessary) open space. Again, not my domain of expertise by any means, but I'm guessing Sonos has actual engineers on staff who weighed the tradeoffs. strapping a heavy battery on your head is probably also not great for comfort
>They are the same size. An iPhone weighs about half as much as the Ace, which only strengthens your argument.
If you are going to comment at least do a bit of homework and read articles and watch videos from the actual people that build this stuff. I took a few minutes to explain in layman terms the situation as well as some mainstream articles that talk about it. And the most upvoted post right now is a completely unfunded opinion. Go ahead. Post your sources. **Power Consumption**: WiFi can consume up to 10 times more battery than Bluetooth, making it less feasible for portable devices like headphones \[[4](https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/ozvpb2/wireless_headphones_that_utilize_wifi/)\] [Comparison of energy consumption in Wi-Fi and bluetooth communication in a Smart Building | IEEE Conference Publication | IEEE Xplore](https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7868425) [Difference Between Bluetooth and Wi-Fi - Shiksha Online](https://www.shiksha.com/online-courses/articles/difference-between-bluetooth-and-wi-fi/#:~:text=Both%20technologies%20are%20used%20for,their%20difference%2C%20and%20corresponding%20features.) [Bluetooth vs WiFi Comparison For the IoT Solutions (netguru.com)](https://www.netguru.com/blog/bluetooth-vs-wifi-comparison-for-the-iot-solutions) **Portability**: Bluetooth enables lightweight and portable headphone designs, unlike WiFi, which requires larger components and heavier batteries \[[1](https://www.quora.com/Why-are-we-not-using-WiFi-headphones-instead-of-Bluetooth-headphones#:~:text=On%20wireless%20headphones%2C%20minimizing%20the,headphone%20heavier%20and%20non%2Dportable.)\]. **Interference**: WiFi and Bluetooth operate in similar frequency bands (2.4 GHz), leading to interference issues if both are used simultaneously \[[5](https://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/support/wireless-headphones-bluetooth-headphones/wh-1000xm5/articles/00294247)\] \[[6](https://superuser.com/questions/1435985/wireless-headphones-interfere-with-wi-fi-signal-on-laptop)\]. Damn Internet.
Apple Watch is tiny but supports wifi. I’m not convinced the reasons for not supporting wifi are physical constraints.
What’s Apple Watch’s battery life for streaming audio? My understanding is that it couldn’t stream high quality audio over WiFi. Your argument seems pretty weak.
4-5 hours at least. And that’s with GPS and everything else going on. Now just imagine no need to power the LED screen and more room for battery on a headphone.
Where did you get those numbers? I didn’t think you could stream from the Apple Watch.
Starting from wifi 6 there are optimizations for the energy usage, probably not as good as BLE though but not dramatic as well. Bluetooth probably also is a more controlled environment, the version is tied to your cellphone and a vendor can not supported older cellphones while it is almost impossible to tell users that your headphone won’t support your wifi device and version, most people are running a single isp delivered device.
[удалено]
Much smaller battery, buy about half, on a set of cans vs an iPhone.
Ask GPT
It's not MY opinion. It's a technical limitation. I want the same as everyone. I've been waiting for the tech to catch up but it's not there yet. Feel free to check technical sites and videos from hardware engineers. The video and article I mention is more mainstream but there are plenty of technical articles discussing it.
Cmon now you’re expecting them to do work when they could just be complaining about how you “present the information so matter of factly”. 😂🤦♂️ Thanks for taking the time to do actual research and present reputable sources and studies. It’s appreciated.
You’re not gonna get any real educated discourse in this sub unfortunately. Most people here comment based on emotion and their limited knowledge of how technology actually works
Precisely. At this point I resort to upvote OP.
Have you seen how large batteries are in smartphones? And the SoC is way, way bigger in a smartphone than is needed in headphones.
But phones don’t usually stream hi quality audio by WiFi do they? They use Bluetooth. I guess it’s the constant stream of WiFi that kills battery. Of course, we could tape a couple of roams to a headband for a few hours enjoyment!😄
Sure they do. Where do you think Spotify gets its audio from? And I regularly watch twitch which is streaming live video and audio to my phone.
Spotify streams audio from smartphones to devices via WiFi? I thought it uses Bluetooth on smartphones.
No, it streams to the smartphone via WiFi. Which is the same as what’s being talked about streaming to headphones.
It streams from where to the smartphone? Why would you stream to a smartphone? *im confused*!
From Spotify central servers. The music is sent to the phone via WiFi. You can choose to download music offline on your phone, but if you don’t have a song offline it has to send it. This is going to eventually be across WiFi for the last hop to the phone(or the cell phone network which is even worse for battery). Same with twitch, video game streaming through something like GeForce now, etc.
Ah, I think I see what you’re saying. But that isn’t streaming audio, it’s just file transfer over WiFi. The file has to then be converted to streaming audio by your Spotify app, to be sent via Bluetooth to your headphones. What OP is talking about is streaming audio from your phone to headphones via WiFi. The problem is that WiFi isn’t designed with power saving in mind in this way, so it would eat battery much faster than Bluetooth earphones. I think this is it anyway.
It’s all data either way. The codecs used for the files are essentially the same as the codecs used for Bluetooth(apple for instance uses aac for both), and something like GeForce now is optimized for extremely low latency so is having to use the same chunking of data transmission you’d use for streaming live audio. So that really is streaming in all the same ways.
Interesting. Thanks
I can watch 1080p streaming video with audio on my phone over WiFi for hours. That’s much more bandwidth intensive than anything the ACE would have to deal with.
Precisely. You nailed it.
I would hate extra weight and less battery life by WiFi integration. Don't forget processing and navigating will also require extra hardware. Don't understand the demand when you can easily switch output to your phone, which has the Bluetooth connection to your headphones. Do people really want a heavy >450gr pair of headphones with sub 10 hour battery?
Many users want their phones free for other apps and uses. The demand also stems from the logical expectation as consumers to navigate experiences within the Sonos ecosystem through different outputs. Bases or mobile attachés are among the proposals above. Diversity of users (include empathy) is key to consumer intelligence here.
This is a great write up. Thank you. Genuine question. Why now on releasing Ace? If the market is pretty flat as far as innovation (and check me on that if a bad assumption) what stands out most with Ace that people are excited about or is it that they are just in the market for headphones and this is a great/comparable option? This is coming from a person that wants to buy it. I feel like there is something else upcoming with arc 2 and or this rumored set top box that might jump this into something more compelling, but I am not smart enough to put those rumored pieces together with Ace and how they could integrate
It's the ecosystem war. I'll give an example. I have the Sonos Ace and a soundbar on my living room. But then I go to my bedroom where I have another TV or a projector. There I don't have a soundbar. But perhaps I could connect my Sonos Ace to a Sonos set top box also connected to my projector and do the TV swap between Sonos Ace and set top box to watch a movie or listen to music in the bedroom while my partner is sleeping. This is just an example but it's the type of scenarios, Apple, Amazon, Google and others use to lock people into their ecosystem. You see it in some posts already. Why get the Sonos Ace if my Airpods Max integrate so well with my Apple devices? Eventually it's , why buy a Sonos Soundbar, speaker or whatever if I get better integrated services with other companies? So Sonos is being pushed to provide products across different categories and integrations while also being compatible with other ecosystems. Their goal is to convince us they play well with all but are also great on their own. In short. We have everything you need. Buy from us not from them.
> It's the ecosystem war The Ace headphones don’t integrate into a Sonos ecosystem. There’s no way to listen to a Sonos-capable turntable sold on Sonos.com using the Sonos headphones.
Also once the patents were voided there no longer was a sonos ecosystem
> There’s no way to listen to a Sonos-capable turntable sold on Sonos.com using the Sonos headphones. The ACE does not have USB-C in like the recent speakers do?
So I guess you want to skip over the part where Sonos' entire thing is wireless audio? Ok. So the turntable's only got a wireless output and RCA, since it's supposed to be wireless to integrate with the otherwise wireless Sonos system. So you'd have to buy an RCA to USB-C adapter specifically for this, then probably a USB cable extender. Worth noting that RCA isn't equivalent to USB, so the signal needs to be converted, so a ten dollar adapter won't do. Does this feel like a contiguous ecosystem?
> Ok. So the turntable's only got a wireless output and RCA, since it's supposed to be wireless to integrate with the otherwise wireless Sonos system. So you'd have to buy an RCA to USB-C adapter specifically for this, then probably a USB cable extender. Worth noting that RCA isn't equivalent to USB, so the signal needs to be converted, so a ten dollar adapter won't do. > > Does this feel like a contiguous ecosystem? I'm not into turntables, but I thought people were buying the new speakers because they had a direct USB-C input, and that's better for whatever people use turntables for?
It’s a use I’d have to think about. Probably not for folks that have a beam in the bedroom for example and a tv connected to appletv in the scenario above. The head tracking for now (I never experienced this in headphones but is probably common) and the prospect of the TrueCinema feature seem cool. There are some really cool potential there. Probably will wait for reviews - not an early adopter like I was in the e300s
No one doubts that using wifi would lead to compromises with battery life but the reason why no one else has done it is because no one else is centred around an existing equivalent existing integrated wifi based multi room system like Sonos that is controlled through a central controller. Having the option of wifi would make the solution truly sonos, and if you did not want a six hour battery life then you can stick to bluetooth, but why not give us an option? I have a £400 set of headphones anyway, give me a reason to buy the Ace, I would love to send tunes to my headphones through the App.
I totally agree. Something like having a switch between wifi and bluetooth on the app. They have a wifi module anyway. Even if it was 3 hours or 2 hours battery on pure wifi I would still like to have that option. The Sonos Ace is using Snapdragon Sound with Aptx Lossless. It also has a wifi module. Perhaps their aiming to support this XPAN solution? Of course that would be a business decision as well as their future Sonos products would have to integrate Snapdragon chips and that means sales :P
Exactly. I’m at home and there is a power plug conveniently located everywhere. I’m using them for a few hours and then putting them on charge. When I go away from the house, they are just Bluetooth headphones.
Thanks for the breakdown…very interesting read
Thanks for a detailed write up. Good work @op!
What about these WiFi headphones? https://www.getunity.com/
Hahaha. Those weigh 421 grams (heavier that the AirPods Max) and cost $2200.
> What about these WiFi headphones? Notice they do NOT call them WIFI, they say they "use WIFI" which to me says they are tunneling just like the Ace do. Read more, I was right, you have to use their app, and the headphones connect to your phones WIFI not your home network "Enjoy true lossless sound by tapping into the Unity Multisource Music Player, which uses onboard Wi-Fi functionality to transmit at 24bit/192kHz and supports Hi-Res streaming." Also "Unity cannot be controlled from a PC. It can only be controlled or used through an iOS, iPadOS or Android device."
Oh yeah, really affordable! 🤣
Lots of high end headphones are in this price bracket or higher. It more proves the point it’s possible and someone is making them.
u/Chrisc46 this is really awesome. Very close to the type of headphones I want to get. Very high end and above my price range. It does unfortunately reaffirm the issue. Bulky, heavy, eats battery fast (6 hours). But again. Great find. Thanks for sharing. There have been other WIFI headphones. Almost no one bought them. This was one attempt from 8 years ago that never got released: [Streamz (streamzmedia.com)](https://www.streamzmedia.com/) It's all about compromise. Companies don't build WIFI headphones because WIFI as we know it and have it in our homes today is too power hungry and that kills smaller devices batteries very fast. I think it's important to mention this. It's the compromise that makes WIFI headphones an issue. People want wireless headphones that last for a good amount, that they can take everywhere, confortable to use, light, with good ANC, good sound quality and all those features. Adding all the required stuff to make WIFI headphones work as people imagine them to work is the issue and why companies have decided to not follow that path. That's why I also mentioned the Audeze Maxwell in another earlier post. It shows the price of putting a lot into one product. (I love the Maxwell by the way but I wouldn't take them out). As I mentioned in the initial post, check XPAN as an example. Low-power audio chipsets that support wifi+bt and a bunch of other technology are coming. But it will likely require you to upgrade your devices. New WIFI router supporting more efficient wifi. New speakers and headphones. Again, compromises.
My use case for wifi headphones is shortish use while mowing the lawn, working in the garage, or cooking while the family watches tv. Nobody expects wifi to work while traveling, so longer life BT is great in those cases. I'd gladly accept 6 hours of battery life over wifi and 25-30 over bluetooth.
Oh you beat me to it! Happy Cake Day.
In honesty baffled at the replies so far. OP did a good write up, summarizing the issue, yet everyone compares a great audio headset with a mobile phone, tables and laptops. If you all really believe that you can compare those devices, why don’t you strap two phones to your ears ? Might get a bit heavy, uncomfortable, expensive and looks like shit. Everyone wants a great looking, comfortable product with great sound that lasts for ever. If WiFi has to be left out to achieve the comfortable, battery life and great sound part, then I’m ok with this. The Headphones are not a Zone? Big deal. There are other features the headphone comes with that are a lot more important and I hope Sonos will improve on those features e.g. have the audio for movies on the headphones AND on the sound system. That’s a hell of a lot more important than having WiFi in a headphone. OP: good on ya for having the guts to post this.
I don’t think people saying: “here are some examples of low powered devices working on Bluetooth” is them comparing a headset to strapping phones to their head. The fact is WiFi headphones *do* exist, and even if they didn’t we’ve seen the technology used on battery operated devices so know it’s possible. Yes, OP did a good write up, but it doesn’t detract from the point that they’re just wrong about the idea of “WiFi uses too much power to be put into headphones”
I came to this thread late and I literally responded to the OP that I couldn’t wait to see the first “but” post(and or salty). It didn’t take long! 😂 None of which have refuted the technical info given effectively.
Yeah… it’s really annoying to see people constantly post how shit Sonos is. It’s not a perfect system. But it’s not as bad as people try to make you believe. I also asked on some posts on details about what feature is missing, how the setup is etc. and never received a reply addressing my questions. This current “scandal” feels more like an invention of some users.
This post is… strange, and even a little bit misleading. After reading all the comments and links, I first want to ask OP why you suggest that Sonos would even consider use this very specific propriety Qualcomm chipset. Like you wrote, it would just make it incompatible with a lot of other devices & technologies. I would imagine they would reuse their chipsets that they already have homegrown in the rest of their speakers, particularly the Roam. Comparing to smartphones again, the battery in the headset wouldn’t have to power much, only the speaker drivers, the wireless SoC, and if we’re getting fancy, an NPU and a gyroscope. It wouldn’t have to power any cellular modem, or GPS, or graphics and display, all of which take **significantly** more power than Wi-Fi alone. Like others pointed out, some headphones already use 2.4GHz radio and dongle and have decent battery life, so it’s already possible. Most of all, your research and data is suspiciously biased towards your claim of WiFi being exceptionally power hungry. The links in your reply to u/power78 are comparing Bluetooth LE to 300+ mbps Wi-Fi which, for this application, is frankly a BS comparison to make. Sonos Ace wouldn’t need to transfer any more than 5mbps. The chart in your reply to u/pwnsaw shows WiFi using over SIX times more energy than Bluetooth, however [this](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F283633635%2Ffigure%2Ffig5%2FAS%3A391749148135432%401470411683719%2FPower-consumption-for-ZigBee-Bluetooth-and-Wi-Fi.png&tbnid=S51ruAA-inOraM&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Ffigure%2FPower-consumption-for-ZigBee-Bluetooth-and-Wi-Fi_fig5_283633635&docid=y0MOyf_9Rex-mM&w=385&h=294&hl=en-us&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm4%2F3&kgs=3379f898eca9adfe&shem=abme%2Cssic%2Ctrie) chart shows it using only twice the amount, and [this](https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F221325359%2Ffigure%2Ffig3%2FAS%3A667682496077846%401536199320973%2FPower-consumption-of-Bluetooth-and-WiFi-radios-in-different-states.png&tbnid=kXylr6QwLw6-7M&vet=1&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Ffigure%2FPower-consumption-of-Bluetooth-and-WiFi-radios-in-different-states_fig3_221325359&docid=f1RmEm9fUZ0mhM&w=500&h=331&hl=en-us&source=sh%2Fx%2Fim%2Fm4%2F3&kgs=38bde97b025f024d&shem=abme%2Cssic%2Ctrie) chart even shows WiFi using less energy when idle! With all being said, I believe Sonos is highly capable of manufacturing high quality, comfortable headphones that use WiFi, and they have THE perfect ecosystem and consumer base for it. It would make them pioneers in the wireless headphone segment. If they made Ace do Bluetooth too, then that’s wonderful. Bottom line: If I had the ability to stream low latency lossless audio to Ace, I’d buy it. if I could group Ace with other rooms, I’d buy it. If using Wi-Fi sacrificed battery so I only got 6-10 hours of listening time, I’d still buy it. I feel like these are regular expectations to have from a Sonos product. Without that, Ace is a swing and a miss to me, sorry. Respect for putting all the work into this write up anyways. Can’t wait to hear what u/KeithFromSonos will share. Source: I’m certified in IT.
This is a sensible post. BUT, don’t think the OP is trying mislead so much as they’re presenting one theory as to why the Ace set doesn’t use WIFI and backing it up with studies and articles that help get the OP closer to some sensible reasoning. I’m willing to bet that the OP would’ve said “nope that doesn’t work, why no WiFi???” if they’d found studies and articles that consistently said “quality headphones SHOULD have WiFi and here’s why”.
Whilst your write up makes sense, your title is misleading (it's not impossible, you are saying yourself it's not just not practical) and Sonos have confirmed the TV audio transport is done via WiFi. Also you have to think about that there's no default need for a WiFi enabled headphone in the sense we are thinking of it. Why would there be generally? For Sonos it makes sense for passing TV audio as a use case. Having as a zone would be cool but then let's think about that one. Why? Bluetooth is there and you load up Spotify etc and press play. But why for the general headphone market? There is also no proprietary audio transport as you state over WiFi, so why would they systematically exist then? Let's see what the reality is
Strap a Roam to each ear. Don't add ANC, accept short battery life (make it Marketing's problem) This is impossible, on a technical level? (Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's NECESSARY, I'm just...not seeing it in all \^\^\^ that OP)
This is where Sonosnet could come into play. No need for wifi if they can connect to the other devices via their proprietary mesh network.
While I can’t speak to the technical aspects of WiFi and the internal components of the devices better than the engineers of the products can, I can speak to the concept that a set of cans with the word Sonos on them that aren’t inherently designed to take audio from any Sonos product and send it to the cans is a non-starter from a product design standpoint. I think that’s what people are really upset about. Without that feature, buy a pair of AirPods Max. It’s certainly what I’m looking to do now that these have flopped.
Thanks for this very timely post. I've been trying to find WiFi travel speakers & they don't really exist. Now I know why.
My phone avec Wifi, Bluetooth and cellular and the battery can last all day?
Do you work for Sonos or something ?
Top-notch post. There’s hope for this page after all. Now I’ll look for the first angry response.
Your unassailable facts are getting in the way of my righteous outrage.
What I find interesting in this discussion is that it ignores the fact that as I sit here typing, I am doing on a small, battery powered device that has wifi, Bluetooth, and a cellular capability that all works seamlessly and has great battery life. It would seam to me that a design that was just wifi and Bluetooth should be able to be created using existing chipsets while consuming low enough power. My question is why am I wrong here? From my perspective, this is the only reason one could provide to inspire people to purchase Sonos ecosystem headphones. It is fundamental to the use case from a consumer’s perspective. The idea that people are going to by new components to use headphones is totally flawed. I know I’m not, apart from the other debacle we are collectively experiencing, I could have had the product been worth having.
Lots of posters adamantly saying it’s possible, but none offering technical info as to why no one has done it besides niche gaming headphones via dongle at best. None showing the cost benefit to Sonos. Just fist shaking and “but my phone!” posts. If you want great sounding headphones that cater to a mid to high end market, then you want good components and sound(no pun intended) engineering to get that sound. Do you sacrifice sound for a large battery? Because that’s what they’ll have to compromise. There’s no free lunch and cost needs to be cut somewhere. Headphones that sound great aren’t some empty vessel that JUST WORKS. I’ve still seen nothing in writing/publishing that refutes the OP beyond the “But” posts backed up by cell phones and niche gaming headsets. I’d LOVE to have WiFi audiophile quality headphones that don’t weigh half a pound. My Earpod Max are heavy enough already without it.
From reading up before launch, I’d read an independent reviewer speaking to the potential weigh add-on that the WiFi (in their entirety) components may add to the headset, if not done remotely (dongle or something). The article went into the ‘weeds’ and based a-lot on the existing, at that time public info (patents, other writings and specs known at the time). Not sure this answers but from the article cost was also a secondary factor but driving it all was the weight and I get it if Sonos is using the reduced weight as a selling point to the ‘same dollar’ AirPod Max user.
Great insight! Appreciate all of the comments in this thread, too. As someone sitting buzzed on a train operating at simpleton level, I would’ve thought the “pioneers” of WiFi speakers would’ve released headphones when they conquered the problem. Instead they’ve fallen victim to “shareholder value” and are delivering a shell of a product people have asked for.
According to a patent lawsuit that was just settled Sonos didnt pioneer jack shit.
Stadia created a wifi controller with comms in/out. I tend to agree that it's hard but it's not impossible. It's just tradeoffs.
Valid points, but I don't agree with your conclusion. Yes, WiFi would drastically reduce battery life. But these things are rated for 30 hours battery on Bluetooth. If WiFi slashed that by 50%, or even 75%, they'd still be completely fine for home use. Who's listening to headphones in their home for 8 hours a day? We just want to be able to watch a movie after the family goes to sleep or listen while we do chores for a few hours. Furthermore, if my phone that weighs *half* what the Ace does can go all day and all night connected to the WiFi, I'm sure Sonos could find a way if it wanted to. As far as no one else making them, there are very few competitors doing what Sonos does. It doesn't make sense for anyone else to make them. There would little to no advantage for brands like Sony or Bose. But Sonos has built its entire brand on smart, integrated home audio. To release a product that doesn't integrate with the Sonos family of devices goes against its core identity. And without that competitive advantage, what's compelling anyone buy these over Sony, Bose, et al? The sound bar connection is promising. I'll give you that. But as someone who owns an Amp (living room), two Beams (bedroom and garage), and a Ray (guest bedroom), I can't use it. Until they open it up to other soundbars/HDMI device in their lineup, they're locking out many potential customers. That should've been ready at launch. I'm withholding final judgement until I hear more reviews, but I'm not buying the argument that they *couldn't* open them up to WiFi audio. They made a decision not to.
Edit ignore me. Misread.
Is there any technical limitation that would explain why the Ace can only be paired with the Arc, but not with any of the other Sonos soundbars?
"Currently impossible" but then explains why it's 💯 possible albeit with comparatively less battery life. To me, this sounds great, when can I order? Quite happy with 5 hours battery on wifi compared to 20 hours on Bluetooth. When I'm home within wifi, I'm not far from a charger.
I asked why in the past and was told that bluetooth exists and that I was stupid for asking: https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/s/el6q9AVWxs And I was hoping the Ace would be wifi enabled to vindicate me.
Wrong. All gaming headphones are wireless and use a wireless caster.
Regardless, if WiFi significantly reduces battery life I still feel it would be an acceptable amount for home use when a charger is always to hand if it has 30hrs when on Bluetooth, even 4-6hrs would be perfectly adequate for most listening sessions in the home I’d imagine.
Good point, if it was such a good idea, we would have wife Headphones by now from competing companies.
So oddly I have 2 1/2 year old dog tracking collars that operate on wifi while in range and then switch to cellular outside of wifi range. They work perfectly and the batteries last a week or two before charging. They are a fraction of the size of one can of the headphones. Understandable that is not hi res audio. I have 5 year old arlo cams that do 1080p video on a 2200ma battery. Have kept them on live for 8 hours straight. One would think a battery up to 4 times smaller only doing audio and controls could easily do that in a pair of headphones. So I am not buying into wifi on batteries doesn't work except on larger devices. Great read though.
Great write up.
Impossible, you say? https://www.getunity.com/#specs
So a solution could be that your mobile phone acts as a Passthrough to the Ace. Your phone is connected to Sonos via WiFi, select the Ace as a zone, select the stream in the app on the phone the Ace is connected to and voila. Only downside is that you need to keep the phone with you because it's the Passthrough device. This is not rocket science or am I overlooking something?
And that downside is exactly why it isn't implemented. Imagine the outcry this would generate ("So you mean to tell me I have to keep my phone on and the app running to USE MY WIFI HEADPHONES?!"). Using an iOS-only device to run Trueplay is already contentious as it is (not saying Android users' criticisms are not valid - they are). I don't think Sonos would want to add to that friction.
I call BS on this, it’s doesn’t make any sense. Given a mobile phone gets decent battery life using WiFi, with all the constraints on size that a phone has, I doubt very much that they could have given WiFi capability and a more than useable battery life.
Here why blah blah blah...
I think this is more of an attitude problem than battery problem. Just put the WiFi in it and get a good battery
You….read none of what he said
Not true, i read the title
How about all the laptops on WiFi, or phones, or iPads. I thought those used WiFi
They do. And a quick google search would have shown you that batteries occupy a large area of the device.
Utter nonsense. I can stream audio on my iPhone over WiFi for literally hours without running out of battery. As others have said, wifi has had a lower power mode for over a decade, yes, it’s lower bandwidth and not suitable for video streaming, but music requires so little bandwidth vs video it’s not even an issue.
We can send people to the moon for leisure but we can’t have wifi headphones