I can't say just how long I have wanted a streaming service that offered lossless audio (real CD quality).  I first started using streaming services years ago with Rhapsody.  When MOG announced 320K streaming, I switched from Rhapsody.  Then MOG was purchased by Beats and I had to find a new streaming service.  To be honest, none of the 320k streaming services completely filled the void left by MOG.  As a result, I tried Rdio, even though they were using lower bitrates.  It was, by far, the most fully realized service and if it streamed 320k, it would be the replacement.  Guess what, Rdio upped their bitrate to 320K AAC in recent weeks and I dropped Spotify (which I was carrying for sound quality).

I was really in love with all the features offered by Rdio when Tidal came out yesterday.   However, Tidal is lossless and Rdio isn't.  Is that enough to switch streaming vendors?   Well, a comparison is in order.

I have several different audio systems around my house.  As a result, I am always looking for better quality audio.  I am not so worried about sound quality that I am looking at different audio speaker wire or wondering if magic rocks and coloring my CDs will make them sound better, but I do care about sound.  On a scale of disinterested to obsessed, I would fall closer to obsessed than disinterested, but I do own receivers, so I am not a full blown audiophile (by audiophile standards).  

Even though I haven't done an ABX test, I am just going to give Tidal the edge in sound quality.  Some would say it would be a slight edge over 320K on good day.  

Coincidentally, I was comparing Norah Jones "Come Away with Me" album that I have in lossless format on my computer with Rdio over the last weekend (before Tidal was released).  To my ears, they were slightly different, but I didn't really prefer lossless over Rdio in this case.  I will say that I have always ripped my CDs in lossless because I might hear a difference on some albums and I don't have time to test every single file.

Winner: Tidal

For its part Rdio has numerous paths for curation.  When you listen to music, they automatically build a playlist/station that is made up of your favorites, they provide recommendations similar to artists you like, the list artist similar to artists you have been listening to, they have "dig deeper" recommendations of artists you have listened to, etc...  There are just a lot of ways for them to suggest music for you.    

Tidal is very weak in this area.  They have a section under an individual artist that has similar artists listed.  Rdio also has this feature, but they also have "inspired by"  and "influenced" to give more context into an artist.  Both services appear to use the incredible ALLMUSIC for their Biographies, so no one gets an edge in that area.

Winner:  Rdio (by a long shot)

Tidal has video available.  I found this feature less impressive than I thought it would be.  To find a video, you have to go to a specific artist and then navigate to the video link.   When I tried this, the pickings were slim.  As an example, U2 doesn't have any videos listed.   I thought I would take a look at Miles Davis.  He has videos listed, but they are a photo of Miles with audio playing in the background.  Not very useful.  Bruce Springsteen had some listed, but none of his iconic videos from the 80s.

Tidal has a landscape mode (see pic below) on the iPhone that I found useful.  It allows you to control the song/album that is playing, but it falls short in some ways, too.  You have to put the phone back in portrait mode to get off of that screen if you want to listen to something else.

Another cool feature of Tidal is that it has articles about certain albums and subjects.  For example, there is an article called "15 Ways to Nirvana: Records that shaped the band".    It is like having a subscription to an audio magazine in addition to listening to music.

Rdio has its own set of unique features.  By far the most unique is that ability to remotely control the Rdio desktop app from the iOS app.   Therefore, if you have Rdio running on a computer,  it works just like the iPad/iPhone app.   It will also let you control Rdio running on one iOS device with a separate iOS device.  This is great if you have an old iPhone docked for audio and want to use your iPad to look at the news while listening to music.

Rdio also has a Shazam plug in that helps you build playlists.  It has something called Boil The Frog that is another unique way to build playlists.

One other feature that Rdio has is the ability to set the streaming bitrate independently for cellular and wifi streaming.  I really wish Tidal had this feature.  I don't want to eat through my GBs on my wireless plan too quickly.

They both had the ability to play music based on an artist, but Rdio is more full featured in this area, as well.  With Tidal you can select an artist, or track, and it will play music similar to them.  I found the "track" selections to be less than desirable.  I was playing Joe Henderson's "Double Rainbow" album (which is Bossa Nova music) and a few songs later it picked "Precis" by Sam Rivers to play.  It is more of a "free jazz" (for lack of a better description) styled song.  Not really want I want to hear when I select tracks similar to "Felicidade".  For my tastes, Rdio did a much better job with "track radio".

Also, Rdio has a setting for artist radio that will allow you to play "Artist Only" to "Adventurous" with an option to play music in the middle of those two choices.  With Tidal, the selection is obviously steered toward adventurous.

Another incredible feature on Rdio is the choice to turn on "Autoplay".  This will allow similar music to continue to play after you finish an album.   

Rdio also has the ability to set up a station based on the record label.  A very unique, but often used feature.

Personally, I think Rdio is a better service overall.  I wouldn't mind video, but Tidal needs a better way to find it and they need a better selection.    Tidal's articles look interesting, but I need to read several of them before I decide how useful it is.   Tidal currently costs twice as much as Rdio.  If Rdio had an option to pay $10 extra for lossless, I would pay it.  However, they don't, which is going to make it hard to decide which service will eventually get my money.   Right now, I am currently leaning toward keeping Rdio, but I need to do some back to back listening of the two services over the next month to decide.  I will keep you posted.

As many that have seen my other webpages or read my blog know, I am a music fan.  As a result, I have spent time researching headphones, DACs, amps, receivers, streaming devices, etc.  I also belong to several audio forums and I have had subscriptions to the most popular audio magazines.  

I own several pair of headphones and they have taught me that individual tastes in audio are subjective.  It shouldn't be surprising since all of our senses are individualistic.  I know people that hate steak and it is one of my favorite meals (for example).  There is an audio forum founded by Steve Hoffman (audio engineer extraordinaire) and he has threads entitled "I have a big problem. My stereo is too good, too accurate. I can't stand it sometimes." and "Audiophiles don't really want NEUTRAL. Audiophiles don't really like NEUTRAL.".    

I have a pair of Shure SRH940s, a pair of ATH-M50s, and a pair of Senn HD580 headphones (in addition to others) and I guarantee that in a random group of 20, you would not get a consensus on which headphone is the best.  The SRH940s are my personal favorite because they have accurate sound, so I can start in that position before I make tweaks or hook it up to a tube amp.  However, the Sennheiser's have a rich, warm sound that is just beautiful with many different kinds of music. The ATH-M50s have more bass punch than the others and many find that more appealing than accuracy or warmness.  

As a result, when a reviewer comes along and says "YYY headphones are the most detailed, accurate measured headphones he has ever reviewed", does this equate to sound that everyone will appreciate?  My guess, is that it won't.   

When you consider the state of CDs, lossy downloads, lossy streaming services, records with surface noise, the "loudness wars", etc.. do we really want accuracy?   I can tell you that combining my Shure's with a Little Dot Tube amp takes away from their accuracy, but at the same time, they sound better to me with a majority of my albums that way.   The tubes take the edge off of bright recordings and add some warmness to the bass.

While I have mentioned the shortfall to trusting just measurements for deciding on equipment, the fact is that reviews without measurements are often less useful.   If it is just based on subjective tastes of one individual, does that really mean that I will have the same experience?  Maybe, but maybe not.

One of the other things I have seen on forums is "consensus" speak.   What happens is that a person who bought one product goes into a forum and says that it is the greatest thing since sliced bread.  If it is an inexpensive (by audiophile standards) product, someone else will try it based on the review.  Since they spent money on it, they will usually come in and concur...before long, it becomes the "flavor of the month".  Typically, you will see this product have extreme popularity for a while until the new "flavor of the month" shows up and makes that older product sound "horrible in comparison".  No wonder there are so many disenchanted audiophiles!

So how does one go about choosing audio equipment?  

First, my suggestion would be to enjoy the music first.  What does this mean?  Well, it means that being hypercritical about equipment is not the best way to listen to music.  What I think you need is to understand your music collection.  Does it consist of only the best mastered albums in lossless formats?  If that is the case, you are missing out on some great music, but it will make your audio component selections easier.  Garbage in = Gargage out, and that makes a huge impact on how music will sound with analytical equipment.   Unfortunately, tons of music was put on CD in highly compressed (small dynamic range) formats.  Some to the point of clipping the wave peak.  Also, with streaming becoming more popular, many are listening to low bit rate lossy files to begin with.

Second, I would try to get a basic understanding of what type of sound I like.  Test some headphones with specific, notorious sound (warm, punchy, analytical, etc.) signatures with an album that you know was mastered with high quality audio in mind (something by Steve Hoffman, for example) and something that sounds harsh to your ears (something like Oasis "(What's the Story) Morning Glory" which is known for heavy compression).  If you can find headphones that sound great to you, for both types of albums, you should be happy when playing most of your music collection with them.  Also, this realization can help you pick speakers and other components for your tastes, as well.  

One of the reasons I have several headphones is that I can have accurate, warm, and bass heavy headphones without needing a larger home to house them all.  Personally, I haven't found one pair of headphones that I like for everything, at least without throwing some tubes in front of them on occasion (which is what I would do if I had just one pair).   However, from my experience, if you can get mostly accurate speakers and other components, you can throw an equalizer (some preamps and receivers have them built in) or tubes in the mix and warm them up or emphasize bass, if that is what you like.   However, if you know you like warmth, and many people do, you could just get accurate components (which most are and measure well) and just throw some warm sounding speakers in the mix.  

The strategy should always be to have equipment that serves YOUR taste, and unfortunately, you usually have to test it yourself to know for sure.   If you get in the game of constantly tweaking based on the latest review and someone else's preferences, I think you get away from just enjoying the music.   I am not saying that you should stop if it is your hobby.  However, I would rather just put together a system based on my taste and enjoy it.  I haven't added anything to my main system in a couple years and I haven't exchanged anything in my other systems for even longer.  Does that mean I have the best reviewed, forum favored equipment there is?  

No, I don't.   

My main speaker system has a Denon 4311CI RECEIVER (the horror!!).   Yep, I own an listen to music on a receiver!  The reason I like it is that it has Audyssey room correction built in.  From my experience, this has made a larger improvement in sound quality than $600+ DACs in my other setups.  Of course, my room is problematic, so it fits my needs.  My point isn't that you should buy the same receiver.  It is that you should analyze your needs and fill those needs with equipment selected around your tastes and budget.   Personally, I have gotten out of the hobby of analyzing my equipment and worrying about the latest component on the market.  I just listen to music now, which is why I am happier with my setup than a lot of audiophiles with more expensive equipment.  I do still read audiophile magazines, but my favorite section is concentrated on new music releases.  

So should you trust audiophile reviews?  My answer is that you can trust that the reviewer is telling you his/her opinion and/or giving you the measurements that they have found.  It doesn't tell you if YOU will like the equipment.  In short, you should find components that have a sound you like, even if it comes from a receiver or $20 T-amp, and once you are confident you have filled that requirement, stop worrying about equipment.  Sit back, relax, and simply ENJOY THE MUSIC!

NOTE:  Please make sure you also check out my newer 2010 Mac Mini vs Sonos Connect article.

Since Sonos new marketing blitz, I have seen a lot of questions related to how Sonos compares to Apple's Airplay.   For those that aren't aware, Sonos and Airplay have many similarities, but there a major differences between the two.

Sonos and Airplay are used for wireless/wired streaming  in many different devices.  For example, Sonos makes individual speakers, a sub, and a device that is simply for connecting to a separate DAC/receiver.   All of the Sonos devices are made by Sonos.  Airplay is a small part of the Apple ecosystem.   Apple makes the Apple TV and the Airport Express that both receive an Airplay signal.  They also license the use of Airplay to many different companies from inexpensive devices by Phillips to high end products by McIntosh.  

Below I am going to list several features of each of these wireless streaming services and how the other compares (NOTE:  Be aware that I strongly suggest buying either product from a vendor with a good return policy in case you have problems that you can't resolve):

1.  Airplay can be used for video, photos, and for mirroring a computer screen with the AppleTV.  

Sonos only works for audio.

2.   Sonos sets up a separate "mesh" wifi signal (in late 2014, Sonos added an update to allow you to also use your regular network)  that works outside of your main wifi setup.  This can be beneficial if your wifi is a problem.   

The Airport Express can bridge or expand your wifi network.  It connects directly to your current network.

3.  Sonos requires a $49 Bridge that connects to your router to setup a wifi network.  (Note: This is no longer required unless you are using their surround system or want to continue using their mesh network)

The Airplay devices connect directly to your current network via wifi or a direct connection via ethernet.

4.  Sonos has wireless individual speakers.  These speakers need to be plugged in and they start at $199.  

Airplay is available in individual speakers, too.  Since it is available in many different products, you can find speakers in the $75 range.  Unlike Sonos, many have batteries and can be portable.  When outside of wifi, some of them have Aux (the cheapest Sonos Speaker with Aux input costs $399) and USB inputs that make them more versatile for a portable setup.  The speakers with USB inputs can charge and play audio from devices like the iPad and iPhone. 

5.  Sonos has the ability to add another speaker and use them for stereo.

I am not aware of any Airplay speakers that have this ability.  You can buy Airplay systems like the Phillips DS9800W that comes with stereo speakers.  However, I would highly suggest getting an Airplay capable receiver and wired bookshelf speakers if you want to use Airplay in a stereo environment.  Unlike Sonos, most bookshelf speakers actually publish their specs.

6.  Sonos makes a Connect that will attach to your current system via analog or digital.  It costs, $349 + $49 for the Bridge (the bridge is no longer needed) if you connect it via Sonos wifi. 

Apple makes the Airport Express that connects to your current system via digital or analog.  It also works on wifi or by direct ethernet connection.  It costs less than $100.   I should mention that I can put an Airport Express in 4 systems for the same price as the Connect + Bridge.

7.  Sonos makes a wireless 5.1 system.  The sound bar is $699, the sub is $699, if you use Play1s for your surrounds, they are $199 each + the $49 for the Bridge.  

I am not aware of anyone making wireless 5.1 systems for Airplay (although there are so many Airplay devices that I could be wrong).   You should be able to put together a wired setup that is cheaper and sounds better for less money, though.  Also, there are devices available by Outlaw and others that will make any speakers wireless.  However, I have never used a wireless solution, so I am not sure how well they work.  

8.  Sonos has an app for Android and iOS.  These apps are designed to work with different services that have a Sonos plug in.

Airplay audio works with nearly every audio app on iOS.   For example, if you currently want to stream iTunes Radio, Tidal, Overcast,  JazzRadio, Downcast, or audio from most any other iOS app (including sending audio from video apps) to an Airport Express, you can do so with Airplay.   In other words, there are a lot more apps that work with Airplay using an iOS device. (Note:  Google play was added to Sonos after I initially wrote this article, so I decided to update this article.  It should be noted that Spotify is adding a Connect service and Apple bought Beats music, so it is possible that Sonos will no longer work with these services in the future.  It probably depends on whether these companies feel that it is cutting into their business.  Currently, Apple doesn't seem to care that much, but who knows what their plans are now that they have Beats?)

Android has several apps that appear to work with Airplay.   I don't own an Android device, so I can't comment on these services, but the AirAudio app professes to send Airplay audio from any Android app.  If it works as they say, it also has more versatility than Sonos.

9.  When using Sonos, most apps are streaming directly from the web despite being controlled by an iOS or Android device.  This means you can leave the area with the device while Spotify (for example) is playing and it will continue to play.

When you Airplay from an iOS/Android device with a third party app like Spotify, you are streaming directly from the device, so if you leave the area, you lose the signal.  Obviously, you can stream anything from a computer to iOS (directly with new Macs or indirectly using Airfoil from other computers), so, if you plan to leave and still want music to continue to play, you can do this directly from a computer.  My preference is using a Mac Mini (see my Sonos vs Mini article) as a media server.

10.  Sonos can send multiple streams to different Sonos devices from one app at the same time.

Airplay can't do this.  You would need multiple devices to send multiple streams.  While that is usually the case, I have a Synology NAS with Airplay built in that will send different streams from a music collection at the same time to separate Airplay devices.  (Note:  The WHAALE app has the ability to send multiple streams from iOS (soon to be an Android app, as well) with certain streaming sources.  See my article on WHAALE here).

11.  As I mentioned, there are many brands that have Airplay built in.  I own a Denon receiver with Airplay.   I can start Pandora, send an Airplay signal to my receiver, and the receiver will turn on and allow me to control the volume without a remote and without leaving the app.

Sonos is not built into receivers, so this is not possible.  They do make a Sonos Connect:amp that will allow you to connect speakers, but it does't compete in a home theater with a receiver and real speakers.  For one thing, there aren't any digital or video inputs.

12.   As I mentioned, Airplay can be used for audio with almost any app.  However, another major benefit by using it with an iOS device (Touch, iPhone, iPad) running iOS7 (or later) is the ability to control volume, skip or go back, and pause from the Control Center.  This means you can be in Safari, Twitter, Facebook, etc.. and still control these features without leaving the app you are in.  You can even control what is playing from the lock screen.

This is not possible with Sonos.

13.  With newer Macs, you can send ANY audio to an Airplay device.  There is also a $25 app called Airfoil (Mac & Windows) that will allow you to send audio from any program to any or all Airplay devices.  

Sonos has an app for computers that allows you to use only the apps with Sonos plug-ins.  

14.  Airfoil also includes something called Airplay Speakers that will allow a computer to be setup as an Airplay receiver.  This allows the computer to show up as an Airplay device and you can send audio to it.  This is beneficial if you use a computer in your main audio setup.  Airfoil Speakers is also available for Linux machines.  Airplay Speakers can also be used on a computer to receive a signal from an iPhone and then send that signal to multiple airplay devices.    

Sonos has nothing similar.

15.  Audiovarna +, Pure Music, and other audio enhancing programs work with Airplay.

Sonos uses its own software.

16.  The Sonos Connect is 2.91 x 5.35 x 5.51 inches (HWD).

The most current Airport Express is smaller in every dimension:  
0.9 x 3.85  x 3.85 inches.  The AppleTV is .9 x 3.9 x 3.9.  This small size makes it easier to fit into tight spaces and desktop systems.  Since Airplay is built into  many devices, you may not even need to take up any extra space.

One thing that should be mentioned is that most people will be happy with adding an Apple TV to their home theater and using it for music, video and photos.  However, it only sends out a 48khz signal, so most audiophiles will also want an Airport Express to play CD quality (16/44.1) bit perfect audio.   The good news is that the price of both together is less than one Connect.

Upside to Sonos:
1.  Complete Wireless Home Theater system
2.  Possible "mesh" wifi network (no longer a requirement )
3.  Ability to buy one speaker now and add a speaker later for stereo
4.  Send different audio signals to different Sonos devices simultaneously
5.  Direct streaming from the web with certain apps

Upside to Airplay:
1.  Better integration with iOS
2.  Works with a lot more apps 
3.  Built into many devices/receivers/speakers
4.  Airport Express can expand your wifi network
5.  A lot cheaper than Sonos 
6.  Better integration in computers (especially with Airfoil and Airfoil Speakers)
7.  Portability of certain battery operated speakers

It should be mentioned that most of the upsides of Sonos can be eliminated within the price differential of the two systems and be more useful in the long run.   For example, the wireless Sonos sub is $699 and only works with other Sonos speakers.  For $674, you could buy an Outlaw LFM-1 Plus/OAW3 Wireless Audio Combo.  This would be less expensive and work with any audio setup now and in the future, unlike the Sonos.   

If your wifi has tons of traffic, the Sonos mesh system might seem to make sense.  However, in most homes the Home Plug (power line ethernet) solution should be better and cost less money.  For example, for $59, you could add a TP_Link Gigabit adapter kit to get ethernet over your power lines (Typically, according to the linked FAQ, the line must be inside 5000 Square Feet).  The upside is that you would be able to connect it to a $99 Airport Express to extend your wifi network, which would benefit all of your wireless products that you use in that area of your home.  The new Home Plug solutions  work with up to 64 units, but the FAQ recommends 16 as the max.  

If you desire simultaneous streaming to different setups at the same time, for less than one Connect ($349), you could buy an iPod Touch for each setup for $224 and add an Airport Express ($95) device and still have money left over.  Personally, I think the need for different music playing in different setups being controlled by one iOS or Android device would be a very rare need.  It would be much more feasible that these separate setups would be for listening to music by different users.  Having a separate controller for each system seems like a much more practical way to manage separate devices.

Also, direct streaming from the web is similar to directly streaming from an iOS device.  If you are worried that your family will be listening to music in your living room from your iPhone via Airplay and you suddenly have to leave, which would cause the music to stop playing, the answer is to buy an iPod Touch that you leave at home.  This could be used as the main streaming device and you could leave with your iPhone without the music stopping.  As I mentioned, the cost of an iPod Touch is $224 (cheaper if you buy last year's model or a refurb) and the price of an Airport Express is $95 (can also find refurb or last generation versions for a lot less money.  I paid less than $60 from Amazon for a last gen version).  It is still cheaper than the Connect by itself or combined with a Bridge.  Personally, I would spend a few extra bucks and get an iPad mini 2 (now $249 for a refurb) for this type of setup, if I didn't already own an iPad.

The advantages of the numerous companies making Airplay devices can't be added to Sonos because it is a closed system.  The only hope is that more audio apps will be supported in Sonos in the future.   

For audiophiles, I think the Airplay devices offer more flexibility and a much more inexpensive way to accomplish similar tasks.  Neither of them currently offer hi rez streaming, so they are on par for sound quality (assuming you use the Connect with the same DAC/receiver).  When you start adding individual speakers, the Airplay speakers can offer more flexibility  because they are in a lot more devices.  If you want a speaker with a lot smaller footprint and battery powered portability, you can get a Phillips Fidelio  SoundRing.  If you want Airplay, but you also want hi rez streaming, you can buy a Pioneer A4 which has Airplay and DLNA built in.  If you want a receiver, but don't want a device hooked to it, you can buy components from Pioneer, Onkyo, Sony, Marantz, Denon, Yamaha, McIntosh, etc,  because they have models with Airplay built in.   

While most articles on this subject prefer Sonos, I really think it is no contest and an easy win for Airplay when it comes to most features, cost, and flexibility.   

NOTE:  If you are a Sonos user and I missed something, please let me know.  I am mainly working off of the information on Sonos' webpage, so it is possible that I missed a feature.

NOTE:  Please make sure you also check out my newer 2010 Mac Mini vs Sonos Connect article.



(edit - 3/22-14) I have had some comments and observations about this article.  I will paraphrase some of the points below:

1.  "Airport Express is more difficult to setup" - While I have never owned an Sonos device, I have setup 3 Airport Express (Update: I bought a 4th for less than $60) devices and they took less that ten minutes for the entire process...including launching Airport Utility on a computer (I only had Windows PCs when I got my first Airport Express and the process is even easier now) and setting it up to expand the network.  Since the Airport Express uses your regular wifi network, if your network has issues, there is a possibility that it could take longer to setup. 
*(important disclaimer below)

Some have said that Sonos is plug and play, but their support page shows that a lot of people have issues with the Sonos, too.  There is a post on Amazon with someone that has had Sonos for 4 years and it continually had to be reset and after several calls to Sonos the issue still hasn't been resolved.    As a result, I can't really say with certainly that Sonos has an advantage in this area.*(important disclaimer below)


2.  "Airport Express requires a double jump, so I have read that drop outs can be frequent" - It isn't a requirement, but for an app like Pandora, you usually send it to your iOS or Android device and then back to the Airplay receiving device.  However, I have seen very few drop outs in my setup.  I actually use Airplay quite a bit for Lynda.com videos.   Airplay can handle sending video from my network to my iPhone and back to my AppleTV without a problem, so it explains why  (in my setup) audio is handled without any issues.  Also, you can wire your Airport Express if you do have an issue.  I have a couple articles (article 1, article 2) on using ethernet power line adapters.  They work great and you can avoid ever using wifi for audio if you have a computer running an app like Rdio, Spotify, or iTunes.   Also, Spotify will add Spotify Connect to the desktop and become another wired only option (currently, you can use the "Remoteless app" for controlling Spotify on a desktop with an iPhone). 

* Note: I have since updated to the "TP-LINK Archer C5 AC1200 Dual Band Wireless AC Gigabit Router, 2.4GHz 300Mbps+5Ghz 867Mbps, 2 USB Ports, IPv6, Guest Network" which essentially doubled my speed across the network via the 5GHz band.  Luckily, the new Airport Express will support these bands.  The Sonos Connect is maxed out at 2.4Ghz so essentially, the double jump would result in the same speed range as a Sonos Connect).
*(important disclaimer below)

Sonos plays directly from the web, so you only need to worry about audio traveling one path.  The only possible benefit is that you don't need a computer in the mix.  However, I find that using a 2010 mini (see my  offers many more options for my overall needs (runs Plex, XBMC, iTunes, Security Cameras, etc..) and only uses 10 watts of idle power.  The Airport Express uses 2 watts of idle power.  A Sonos Playbar, just for comparison purposes, is 13 watts and bridge is 4 watts of idle power. 

*(important disclaimer below)

*DISCLAIMER
* I should mention that I can't say how either device will work in your home, so I have stayed away from this topic in my original article.  You can find  a lot of people that have had issues and success with both systems, so without real numbers, I can't say which is better.   My suggestion is that you buy these devices from vendors that have a good return policy in case you have issues.  

While I am on the subject of issues, I also want to mention that the Airport Express can have issues with dropouts between songs that clip off the beginning of songs with certain DACs.  I have used Airport Express units with 5 different DACs and I have never had an issue, so I am not sure how common the issue is.  As with the above, I would buy (at least the first one)  from a reliable source that has a good return policy.  With anything  tech, it is best to have some time with the product to determine if it will work with your environment.  

3.  The AppleTV has a feature that will allow you to send the audio to  any other Airplay receiver.  This is convenient if you have a headphone setup with an Airport Express near the area you watch AppleTV.  I have an Airport Express headphone setup next to my bed, so I can lay in bed and watch AppleTV without disturbing anyone.

Sonos doesn't have a similar feature.  

4.  Some have pointed out that it is convenient to have all of the apps built into one remote app like you have with Sonos.  This makes it easy to setup playlists and go in between several different services without needing to open several apps to do the same thing.

While this may be a benefit to some, you lose features from many different apps by going with the Sonos only app.   I am a subscriber to MOG (unfortunately, they go out of business in less than a month, but I am using this as an example) and their most unique feature compared to other music streaming services is the radio slider built into their app.  It allows you to start with the slider all the way to the left for shuffling music by one artist.  As you push the slider to the right, you add more similar artists.  You lose this feature by using a Sonos.  From what I have read, you also lose functionality for other apps like Spotify.  When it comes down to it, I would rather use the app designed by the music service since it is built to make the most of their service rather than using a "catch all" app designed by Sonos.   

The other benefit of using the app designed by the actual music steaming company is that you probably use that app when you are away from home via your cellphone.  I can listen to MOG in my car via bluetooth audio and walk in the house and flip up the Airplay controller and switch the audio to an Airplay device without leaving the app.  It works the other way around, too.  When I am listening to audio in the morning on Airplay devices,  I can leave the house and switch to bluetooth audio in my car without missing a beat.  Not possible with Sonos.

I will let people decide for themselves which approach they prefer, but I much prefer using apps that aren't crippled in exchange for integration between apps in a Sonos remote setup. 

5.  "My Sonos allows me to use a USB hard drive attached to my router without needing  a computer/NAS and it will catalog those songs into its system" - There are a lot limitations to the routers that this works with, so you may also need to add the price of a new supported router to the price of the Sonos system if you want to go this route.  

Airplay works with most apps in the iOS ecosystem.  While I use a NAS and/or a mac mini in my setups, I did a five minute search and found a $5.99 app called FileBrowser that works on iPhones/iPads (there are probably other apps that are similar, but this is the first one I ran across).  It will actually find any drive hanging off your network.   I have my music in folders arranged by artist/albums/songs and it is connected to an older Airport Extreme router.  It will allow you to open the folder with the songs and play the music and it works with Airplay.  It won't catalog the songs, so it is still limited in comparison to Sonos and an approved router, but it works fine if your goal is to play music.  I also want to mention that this app also works with supported video formats, so you can Airplay video to an AppleTV without using a computer.  I was surprised that it also works with DD5.1 soundtracks.

Rather than using the FileBrowser (although I recommend this app and plan to review it in the future), I would suggest loading your music up to Google Play (free for 20,000 songs), iTunes Match ($25 a year with a 25,000 song limit), or Amazon's service (that I have not tried).  The downside to these services is that they don't use lossless Codecs.  However, the Codecs are fine for most people if the popularity of the lossy Codecs used by iTunes, Amazon, Spotify and Pandora are any indication of what is acceptable to most people.   

The upside is that by allowing these services to scan your library,  you will get a cloud backup of your library in the formats that these services use (the last time I checked Google was using 320kbps mp3s and Apple was using 256k AAC files).  This will be an upgrade for some and a downgrade for those using lossless.  However, I think for the typical person the upside of having a cloud backup that is available anywhere via their cell phone outweighs the possible downside of using a 256k file.   I personally prefer listening to my own music at home in lossless, because I know nothing is missing, but I don't usually buy lossy music, so I know I am outlier.

The other upside is that iTunes Match is integrated right into the AppleTV's GUI and Siri on the iPhone/iPad (which means you can just tell Siri what you want it to play without even looking at a screen). If someone is using AppleTV, I would recommend iTunes Match.  For those using Chromecast, I would suggest using Google Play.  I have my music on both services because I tried Google's music service and loaded my files up to their service at the time.  While I didn't subscribe to Google Play, my music is still available in their app.

Since Sonos doesn't work with either of these services (Note:  They finally added Google Play after I wrote this article... nearly a year after it was available on everything else), I would call that a downside.  I would suspect that Google Play is integrated nicely into Android phones, but people will need to research that for themselves since I don't own any Android devices.

Another option is a hard drive that connects to your system via ethernet.  The Seagate Central that currently starts at $129 for a 2 terabyte drive.  It has an Android and iOS app that gives you remote access and the ability to stream audio via Airplay in lossless formats.  It also does the cataloging of your music.  I prefer a Synology NAS (that start at $149 for a one slot diskless platform) and their fantastic DS Audio app, but it can cost more.  However, I would prefer any of these to buying and setting up a new router.

6.  "I am ignorant of Airplay and I refuse to buy Apple products, but Sonos makes the best product on the market" - Ummmm...  Then  buy a Sonos!  It doesn't hurt my feelings.  I don't work for Apple.  These are just my observations after researching both products.   Sonos spends a lot of money on marketing their solution and Apple spends next to nothing on Airplay.  As a result, a typical consumer may have no idea that there is another, much cheaper, device that does very similar things (some better, some worse).   This article was to help those people understand the differences.  It isn't to convert Apple haters that want to stay ignorant about Airplay.

7. It has been brought to my attention that this article seems to be biased toward Airplay.  Well, Airplay simply does more (video/photos), is compatible with more devices (Denon, Sony, McIntosh, Phillips, etc..) and apps (currently Downcast, iTunes Match, iTunes Music, YouTube, etc..), and usually costs less.  

It is hard not to sound biased.  Even Sonos knows this or they wouldn't have a web page promoting the benefits of Airplay ( of course, you have to read the small print to realize that you need an Airport Express to make it work):

As I mentioned in the article, there are some upsides to Sonos.  It really just comes down to a cost/benefit analysis of whether those upsides justify the price and the loss of features available via Airplay.   Of course,  Sonos seems to think you should just buy both systems and then you get the upsides of both systems...  I would recommend this if you actually need those features and price is of no concern.

This article is a response to the "Death of the Home Stereo System" article at CNN.com.  My plan is to take sections of the article and reply to them as a modern day music fanatic.

"All I had to bring was my laptop. That's pretty much what everyone had," says Rubio, who attended Emory University in Atlanta and now works for a local marketing and communications firm. "It was actually pretty good sound. It would get the job done."
"Get the job done"? That sounds like the white flag for an era that used to be measured in woofers and tweeters, watts per channel and the size of your record collection."

I doubt people took their record collections and watts per channel everywhere they went back in the so-called "golden age" of audio.   Now you can plug in a Dragonfly DAC and connect a pair of quality headphones and get fantastic sound quality anywhere you can carry a laptop (which is everywhere).  Your mobile choices in the past were much more limited.  If you were lucky, you had a mobile cassette player that did not compare to the sound quality from this type of setup.

"What's happened in the marketplace, the midmarket for audio has completely been obliterated," he says. "You have this high-end market that's getting smaller all the time, and then you've got the convenience market, which has taken over -- the MP3s, the Bluetooth devices, playing on laptops."

I don't believe that these devices are a compromise as much as they are answering an issue related to portability.  Also, most "mp3 players" now handle lossless formats.  For the audiophile, this is a better option for portability than wheeling around your components, speakers, and record collection in a wheelbarrow.

Also, I don't believe the midmarket for audio has been destroyed.  There are tons of DACs, amps, headphones, speakers, and receivers that aim at the midmarket.  In fact, I believe audio quality is improving at lower prices with each passing year.

As an example, I have a $30 T-amp that produces decent sound with a pair of efficient speakers.  You could not come close to the price (especially when you use present value formulas) for this sound quality in the past.  

The plus side to receivers is that the tech in the high end market of yesterday is now available in the lower  priced ( less than $1000 - not sure what is meant by midmarket) market today.   I have an extremely cheap Sony receiver (I think it was around $200 when I bought it) in my office that has audio pass through (this is needed if you are using a separate DAC) and can play anything you throw at it.  The same features a couple years ago would have been over $1000, easily.   Actually, it has features not available in $5000 receivers from 5 years ago....like the ability to play HD audio formats via HDMI instead of having 6 component audio connectors.

"Greg Milner, the author of the audio recording history "Perfecting Sound Forever," remembers the process. There were components. There were boxes of tapes and CDs. There might even be some vinyl.

It could be a pain, no question. The equipment was heavy. There were all those wires, plugs and jacks -- Line In, Line Out, Aux, Phono, CD, keeping track of the positive and negative strands of speaker wire. It was an effort just to break down and set up the stuff, never mind moving it."

Exactly, these things weren't made for portability.  CDs and vinyl are both still around and more people are buying vinyl than they have in years.  However, CDs are often bought and then ripped to a computer in a lossless format for the convenience of playing anywhere. 

"However, we also started focusing more on visuals. Penchansky traces the decline of the stereo system to the early '80s rise of the music video, which brought visuals to the fore. Suddenly, the concert hall in your living room -- or the audio imaging in your head -- was gone, replaced by surrealist pictures overwhelming the television's tiny speaker.

That branch of consumption has helped lead to the home theater.

Penchansky has nothing against HDTVs and 7.1 systems, but believes that, for the most part, it's a "sonic compromise." With a pure audio system, "There was no way that television, even today, simulates the realism of visual experience the way (good) audio can simulate an audio experience."

I agree that the video had a lot to do with the popularity of the home theater.  However, I think it had less to do with MTV than Dolby's Pro Logic combined with the VHS tape.  This allowed a more immersive experience for movie fans.   When DVDs hit the scene, the typical 3 channel setup expanded into 5.1 for Dolby Digital and DTS.  The flexibility of listening to a stereo soundtrack and a more movie theater like experience made people move the two channel setup out of their main living spaces.  The addition of a subwoofer also added much more oomph to the low end of the audio spectrum, especially when compare to the typical bookshelf speakers many people were using.

Personally, I don't believe this has to be a trade off.  I have a vintage two channel Marantz receiver and my Denon surround system blows it away for two channel music and obviously for movies.  The Audyssey calibration software built into many receivers addresses acoustical issues with less than optimal rooms.  To me, this was a significant step up in sound quality for all audio sources.  

The author seems to think this is a sonic compromise, but I don't agree with that assessment.   Listen to Dave Mathews and Tim Reynolds on Blu-ray in TrueHD audio and tell me that a video and audio experience combined don't measure up.  The flexibility of a multichannel setup also allows the user to take advantage of DVD-Audio and multichannel SACDs.  To me, a two channel only setup is more of a compromise.   You can't even listen to the great RCA Living Stereo or Mercury LIving Presence SACDs with the third audio track (which is how they were originally recorded) with a two channel only setup.

"Now, why even bother?" he asks. "If you can take your entire music collection and more in something that fits in your pocket, why would you not do that?"

The upside to using audio files isn't just pocket portability (although that is a major factor).  It is also about having your entire collection available from anywhere, including every room in your house or streaming it to your computer at work.  In the past, if you wanted to listen to a CD in your bedroom, you may have had to go out to your car to get the CD before being able to play it.  You may have it on a rack in the living room or in a CD player in another system.  Now you can pull the music from a server (computer, NAS, hard drive) and play it without needing the physical CD.  I have Airplay devices all over the house and it is great to be able to play a lossless version of any album I own from anywhere in the house or even stream the audio to every one of those units at the same time.

Finally, this may or may not be the so-called  "golden age of audio", but I do believe it is the golden age for the music fan.  Convenience leads to people listening to more music.  Services like MOG and Spotify allow subscribers to listen to millions of songs or thousands of albums.  Last night, I was watching Leno on the Tonight Show and he had Gregory Porter as the performer.  I had never heard of Mr. Porter, but I enjoyed his soulful performance.  This morning, I pulled up his new album on MOG (in a very acceptable 320kbps) and listened to it on my Denon 4311Ci setup.  It was great!  In the so-called golden age of audio, I probably would have never heard from him again.  It was too expensive to spend money on a full album that I might not enjoy and I would have forgot all about by the time I made it to the record store.  

When I was a kid, I remember going to library and checking out a couple of albums (I seem to remember a strict limit of a couple of albums at a time).  If I wanted to dig deeper into the John Coltrane album collection, I was out of luck because they only had a copy of "Blue Train".  With MOG, I can listen to every album (or at least most of them) in his collection.  I can also just push a button to take me to similar artists if I want to continue to explore.  

I do believe there is a disconnect between the music fan and the audiophile.  Many music fans can listen to music on AM radio and enjoy it.  It is about the music.  The audiophile often listens to their equipment and concentrates on the inadequacies.  I admittedly have more music fan in me than audiophile, but I have spent money on DACs, headphone amps, and other things to improve the sound over a standard set earbuds.   Unfortunately, I think being an audiophile often leads to discontent and the inability to just relax and enjoy the music.   This doesn't mean I don't strive for the best bang for the buck sound, but I don't  continually chase sound quality when I am fully aware of the law of diminishing returns. 

In short, I believe this is the golden age for music!

I subscribe to iTunes Match, but I also wanted to simply stream  audio files from a Mac Mini to my iPhone.  I have been through a couple different programs in the past (Jukefly and Simplify), but they went away.  I decided to try Audiotap and I am very happy with the results.

To use Audiotap, you have to download their "mediatap" software on your Mac or PC (thanks James).  It uses the information from iTunes, like playlists and podcasts, and makes everything available over the internet.

Once you have the server setup, which I found to be very easy, you are ready to stream your music.  I connected to the computer from home and it remembered the settings when I left the house.  Above, is a look at the interface for albums.  The app gives you the choice of loading the images (album art) all the time, via wifi only, or never.  This is nice if you don't want to use the extra bandwidth.

Above, you can see that it also lets you find music using the artist.  Also, notice Playlists, Podcasts, and More at the bottom of the screen.  This is pretty much the same thing you would see in iTunes. 

Once you choose the Artist, if you have images on, you will see a screen similar to the pic below:

Notice that it is currently streaming at 752 kbps.  Obviously, that much data could be an issue over certain connections, so Audiotap gives you a choice of how much compression you want to use.

Of course, one of the main benefits of the iPhone is Airplay.  As you would guess, they have built that feature into the App, as well.   There is also a playlist function that lets you choose a current playlist or create a new playlist.  I am old fashioned, so I like listening to albums rather than playlists, but the option is there so it should make a lot of people happy.

If you are looking for a cheap alternative ($3.99 at the time I wrote this) to iTunes Match that can handle more than 256 kbps files and you just want to stream files without downloading, Audiotap should fit the bill.