There has to be a network closet anyway, and yes, many people prefer in-wall/ceiling speakers which often have better audio quality, don't have cords running around, don't need to be placed on anything, etc.


I get it, but there's no reason to retire all of it. The volume controls could be bypassed and blank plates put over them, giving you all the control inside the closet where you could use a streaming device of some sort to handle everything. I'd love to have speakers built into every room of my home.


I like your spy craft! I might have to think about this kind of setup for my basement, where everything comes into a Bell Atlantic box inset into the stud bay. It's a weird thing from 1999.


I'm with you. Sonos is pricey but you get a great product for it. Well designed, sounds really good, and does the multi-room streaming better than anyone. The wireless aspect is perfect for post-construction or apartment dwellers.

I may consider Sonos in the future because of its Chromecast support, which is a huge deal since Sonos is so very terrible at podcasts.


This surprises me too, especially considering how many new construction homes I come across with a Sonos in it. I have several customers who opted for a Sonos system to be installed as an upgrade. A multi-zone controller makes so much sense. Even just a two-zone unit so you could get exactly the number you need while cutting down on a little bit of the silliness.


It's a definite option, frankly. The main problem is that it looks even stupider than a stack of Sonos Connect:Amps. You'd have the row of amps, and a row of Chromecasts, and all the wires that go to power and connect all of them. It would be insanity, but I'd have to think it would just work, and work better than most of these systems that scream "1997." What inexpensive amp would you pair with such a system?


I've wondered about that too. I'm really not sure why you can't. The upside is that a Chromecast Audio is $35, so you could always add one to the unused "CD" input on your receiver