Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-16 Thread bruce

Another option would be to go to a skinnier (and possibly shorter) font
if the whole title can't fit. This could be automatic or it could be a
user option (along with a choice to scroll or truncate if the skinny
font still won't fit).


-- 
bruce

bruce's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2955
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-15 Thread usch

aubuti;495405 Wrote: 
> Standard fonts on the SB3: "Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Me" (34
> characters incl spaces)
> Large fonts on the SBT: "Stuck Inside of Mobile w" (24 characters incl
> spaces)
Cool, thanks again. According to a quick statistic of my music library
16% of the track titles are longer than 24 characters, and 5% are longer
than 34 characters. So the Touch would have to scroll (or truncate, if
that is possible) about three times as often as the Classic.

But there seems to be some wasted vertical space - maybe it would be
possible to drop the "Now playing"/"Paused" indicator and wrap the track
title across two lines instead?


-- 
usch

usch's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=33389
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-15 Thread aubuti

Bandraginus;495705 Wrote: 
> But the good news is that Logitech only need to do one simple thing to
> solve the problem.  They need to sell the Receiver (from the Duet
> package) as a separate entity.
It's even simpler than you may think, because they have been doing
exactly that since shortly after the Duet came out almost two years ago.
You can buy the Duet package (SBC + SBR), or buy either component
separately.


-- 
aubuti

aubuti's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2074
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-15 Thread cliveb

Bandraginus;495705 Wrote: 
> But the good news is that Logitech only need to do one simple thing to
> solve the problem. They need to sell the Receiver (from the Duet
> package) as a separate entity.
What probably makes more sense would be to re-jig the Receiver with the
Touch internals (ie. omit the screen), so that the various players
scattered around the house support the full set of codecs and sample
rates. I've not seen the insides of a Touch, but it's a reasonable
assumption that its mainboard could be deployed without the screen. This
would avoid the need to maintain a separate production line for the
obsolete Receiver mainboard.

(And while we're thinking about deploying mainboards without screens,
let me just point out that the same could be done with the Transporter -
offer a "TP Receiver" without the displays, knob and buttons).


-- 
cliveb

Transporter -> ATC SCM100A

cliveb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=348
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-14 Thread snarlydwarf

maggior;495714 Wrote: 
> Did I miss something?  Did Logitech drop the squeezebox receiver?  I've
> read that they are becoming harder to find, but I haven't seen an
> announcement about it.  Now that I look, I see it isn't listed in the
> product matrix.  Hmmm...

It's never been listed seperately in the matrix, to avoid confusing
people about "i bought a receiver and what do you mean I need an
SBController to set it up!"

http://www.logitechsqueezebox.com/product_matrix.html

My guess is still that Logitech told the folks in Mt View they should
stop distributing stuff themselves and use proper corporate channels so
they could save on consilidation...

Mt View folks did their part and stopped their own distribution... but
Logitech corporate hasn't picked up the ball.


-- 
snarlydwarf

snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-14 Thread bruce

The Receiver is still available at logitech.com for $149.99.


-- 
bruce

bruce's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2955
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-14 Thread maggior

Bandraginus;495705 Wrote: 
> 
> However there's one big problem. See, everybody says that the Touch
> is/will be great for controlling all the other players in the house. 
> But with the current line-up, there are NO generic players!  They just
> scrapped what most people used as a generic player.
> 

Did I miss something?  Did Logitech drop the squeezebox receiver?  I've
read that they are becoming harder to find, but I haven't seen an
announcement about it.  Now that I look, I see it isn't listed in the
product matrix.  Hmmm...

I agree it would be a bad idea to drop this.  I think it is a great way
of exanding your squeezebox setup - I bought one.

If this is being dropped, I wonder if they have a surprise up their
sleeve to replace it.


-- 
maggior

Rich
-
Setup: 2 SB3s, 3 Booms, 1 duet, 1 receiver.  SuSE 11.0 Server running
SqueezeCenter 7.3.3, MusicIP, and SqueezeSlave.  
Current library stats: 30,015 songs, 2,448 albums, 451 artists.
http://www.last.fm/user/maggior

maggior's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9080
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-14 Thread pablolie

Bandraginus;495705 Wrote: 
> ...
> So, with the Duet, the Touch, and the Receiver as separate products,
> their product line-up would be fantastic and good for just about every
> location (of course, including the Boom for bedrooms, etc).

I agree.

I'd also make sure that the concept  of "great DA for the price" as
well as optical IF is kept there intact. And another thing would be
usability - I think the *one* controller every household would own to
control different players needs a shortcut to switch from player to
player.

[/I]


-- 
pablolie

...pablo
Server: Shuttle X27D - Ubuntu 8.04LTS - SBS 7.4.1
Sources: SB3 (3), SB Boom (3), Duet (1), Accuphase DP65v CD
Amplifier: Accuphase E306v - Creek OBH21/22
Loudspeakers: Ceeroy 3-way tower (tuned) - Audioengine 5/S8 - Acoustic
Energy Aego M
Headphones: Grado SR-1

pablolie's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3816
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-14 Thread Bandraginus

I've just come onto this thread, so please excuse me for re-hashing old
territory here.

I believe that the original poster of this thread is mostly right.

Just about everybody on this thread has said that the Touch is a great
piece of kit and will enhance the product line.  It's a great
replacement to the SB3.  And they're right!  The enhancements over the
SB3 are pretty neat (and they may even come down in price over time).

However there's one big problem. See, everybody says that the Touch
is/will be great for controlling all the other players in the house. 
But with the current line-up, there are NO generic players!  They just
scrapped what most people used as a generic player.

The whole idea of the Slim system is a "whole of house music system". 
But now they've dropped the one player that you could scatter throughout
the house.  I'm NOT going to buy a Touch to stick it up in the attic to
control my in-ceiling speakers. What a waste of most of its features! 
I'm NOT going to buy a Touch to control speakers on the balcony, because
I don't want to walk inside to change the music.  If I stick a Touch
into my main stereo rack (behind glass doors), I'm never going to use
the touchscreen part of the Touch.  And so on.  The feature-set of the
Touch just misses the mark for most of the applications of where you
actually want a basic player.

But the good news is that Logitech only need to do one simple thing to
solve the problem.  They need to sell the Receiver (from the Duet
package) as a separate entity.  And don't tell me to buy a complete Duet
package for all those examples I just gave...  I only need one
controller.

So, with the Duet, the Touch, and the Receiver as separate products,
their product line-up would be fantastic and good for just about every
location (of course, including the Boom for bedrooms, etc).


-- 
Bandraginus

Bandraginus's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34978
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread aubuti

usch;495249 Wrote: 
> Great, thanks. I see you have the track time in the bottom row which
> uses up some space. If you move that to the top row like I have and use
> the entire bottom row for the title, according to the photo I'd guess
> that you can show a text that is more than twice as long on the Classic,
> while there is only room for about 50% more on the Touch. But I admit
> that it does not look as bad as I expected.
No photo this time, but I moved the track time from the SB3 bottom row
and queued up a track with a longer title to compare truncation. 

Standard fonts on the SB3: "Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Me" (34
characters incl spaces)

Large fonts on the SBT: "Stuck Inside of Mobile w" (24 characters incl
spaces)


-- 
aubuti

aubuti's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2074
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread aubuti

usch;495249 Wrote: 
> Which means you are essentially using the higher resolution to create a
> smaller font. But if you want sufficiently big text (of the same
> physical size on both devices) and read that from the distance, it makes
> no difference whether that font is made of 24 or 32 pixels.
What I am trying to say is that the higher resolution allows a smaller
font to be as easy to read as a larger, lower res font because it is
more sharply defined. That is, to my eyes at least, they don't have to
be equal size to be equally legible. YMMV.

usch;495249 Wrote: 
> As you mention truncation, is it possible to turn scrolling off and
> simply truncate the text, or will it inevitably scroll everything that
> doesn't fit? I could live with truncation, I just hate text that is
> scrolling all the time.
I don't recall whether there's a setting or not. Offhand I don't think 
so. I'll try to remember to check and post back.


-- 
aubuti

aubuti's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2074
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread toby10

usch;495285 Wrote: 
> Ah, yes, I forgot about the wires. :(
> 
> Is it just me, or does anybody else agree that with the wall mount it
> looks a lot like an electricity meter? :D
> http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8053&stc=1&d=1251998911
> http://farm1.static.flickr.com/201/476660042_ec4d5096d6.jpg

I guess you haven't seen the MySB App for whole house thermostat
control!  :)

Of course if Touch loses it's connection to MySB then your heat doesn't
work, but hey


-- 
toby10

toby10's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12553
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread bruce

usch;495192 Wrote: 
> Not from -any- drive on the network, only from USB drives that are
> directly connected to the Touch. ... I would really like to use it as a
> standalone server, but its capabilities seem way too limited, given that
> plugins are not fully supported and you already need a plugin to do such
> simple things as automatic playlists based on track ratings.
> 

In that case, here's how I think the Touch could turn Squeezebox line
into a successful semi-mass market product:

1) Logitech should sell a few external drives in varying sizes
appropriate for music storage. Ideally these would come with housing
that looks related to the Touch and can share a power adapter with the
Touch. Audio users shouldn't feel like they're shopping for computer
parts.

2) Make sure that a non-technical user can configure all their players
with the most important features using some combination of the server
Touch (the one that hosts the music drive), the other players on the
network, and a separate admin utility that can run on a computer on the
network. By "most important features" I don't mean all plugins, but I
would include lazy search because that is so essential to a usable
system. I've heard that lazy search must be a separate plugin not
provided by Logitech for legal reasons; if that's true, then Logitech
needs to make it possible for someone to make a similar plugin for the
Touch, even if there's not a more general plugin capacity. 

Couldn't smart playlists be set up with iTunes or similar programs?


-- 
bruce

bruce's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2955
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread usch

aubuti;495272 Wrote: 
> Yes, you could do that. But it's a recess mounting bracket, so then
> you'd need to fiddle with getting the interconnects back out of the wall
> to get to your amp. Here's some pics:
> http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=67420
Ah, yes, I forgot about the wires. :(

Is it just me, or does anybody else agree that with the wall mount it
looks a lot like an electricity meter? :D
http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8053&stc=1&d=1251998911
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/201/476660042_ec4d5096d6.jpg


-- 
usch

usch's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=33389
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread aubuti

usch;495266 Wrote: 
> Of course not -inside- the cabinet, but one could mount the Touch on the
> wall next to it without the need for an extra shelf.
Yes, you could do that. But it's a recess mounting bracket, so then
you'd need to fiddle with getting the interconnects back out of the wall
to get to your amp. Here's some pics:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=67420


-- 
aubuti

aubuti's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2074
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread squeez-er

pfarrell;495243 Wrote: 
> Er, you seem to be fighting the realities and economics of the consumer
> electronic industry. 

Can't blame me for trying :)


-- 
squeez-er

squeez-er's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=32438
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread aubuti

usch;495264 Wrote: 
> Another thing I observed is that at the end of a product's life the
> street price might even rise again. Kind of logical if you think about
> it because the cheapest dealers will get rid of their stock first, but
> surprising if you expect the price to gow down continually. So anybody
> who still wants a new Classic should probably not wait until the last
> minute.
Not just the cheapest dealers selling out first, but also the price
going up because of scarcity as there are fewer out there. Constant
demand + shrinking supply => increasing price.


-- 
aubuti

aubuti's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2074
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread usch

(Touch Wall Mount)
toby10;495252 Wrote: 
> Yes, it exists.  Though I don't think that would be much help inside an
> AV cabinet in most instances.
Of course not -inside- the cabinet, but one could mount the Touch on
the wall next to it without the need for an extra shelf.


-- 
usch

usch's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=33389
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread usch

pfarrell;495243 Wrote: 
> Moore's law drives everything and it either drives the price of old
> stuff to zero (bad for profits) or it drives the company to add new
> features to use up all the power that Moore's law provides.
I had to learn that when I bought my first ink jet printer. I knew
exactly which model I wanted to buy, I just wanted it to become a bit
cheaper. But instead of that it was discontinued, and a follow-up model
was released at exactly the same price.

Another thing I observed is that at the end of a product's life the
street price might even rise again. Kind of logical if you think about
it because the cheapest dealers will get rid of their stock first, but
surprising if you expect the price to gow down continually. So anybody
who still wants a new Classic should probably not wait until the last
minute.


-- 
usch

usch's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=33389
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread toby10

usch;495249 Wrote: 
> 
> Wasn't there a rumour about a wall mount for the Touch?

Yes, it exists.  Though I don't think that would be much help inside an
AV cabinet in most instances.


-- 
toby10

toby10's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12553
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread usch

toby10;495204 Wrote: 
> The nice thing about the Touch and SB3 is their light, small form factor
> (thin client design).  So light in fact, that like you I was limited on
> AV rack space for my SB3, so I created a "floating" SB3 taking up no
> space on the AV rack shelves.  Using just a wire hanger and a flat black
> piece of rubber tubing my SB3 is "floating" centered above the top shelf
> AV devices.
Nice idea. :) I would have to put it -way- above the top shelf though,
or otherwise I would no longer be able to open the lid of my record
player (which I still use since I've only ripped a small fraction of my
LPs to disk yet).

Wasn't there a rumour about a wall mount for the Touch?

aubuti;495226 Wrote: 
> I disagree that pixel resolution is irrelevant. You know the point isn't
> to see the individual pixels. Packing the pixels tighter on the SBT
> means you can make equally legible text in less horizontal space.
Which means you are essentially using the higher resolution to create a
smaller font. But if you want sufficiently big text (of the same
physical size on both devices) and read that from the distance, it makes
no difference whether that font is made of 24 or 32 pixels.

aubuti;495226 Wrote: 
> Here's the NP screen with only text, no album art, side by side with a
> Classic. When I get a chance, I'll do another one using a track with a
> longer title, so you can judge better the amount of truncation on the
> SBT. http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?p=492388#post492388
Great, thanks. I see you have the track time in the bottom row which
uses up some space. If you move that to the top row like I have and use
the entire bottom row for the title, according to the photo I'd guess
that you can show a text that is more than twice as long on the Classic,
while there is only room for about 50% more on the Touch. But I admit
that it does not look as bad as I expected.

As you mention truncation, is it possible to turn scrolling off and
simply truncate the text, or will it inevitably scroll everything that
doesn't fit? I could live with truncation, I just hate text that is
scrolling all the time.


-- 
usch

usch's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=33389
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread Pat Farrell
squeez-er wrote:
> The fact that something is old is a bad excuse to make something new. I
> don't care if it's old - I only care if it works. And it does exactly
> what I want from my wifi music player to do - play music and show what's
> playing even when I'm further away.

Er, you seem to be fighting the realities and economics of the consumer
electronic industry. Moore's law drives everything and it either drives
the price of old stuff to zero (bad for profits) or it drives the
company to add new features to use up all the power that Moore's law
provides.

Apple is on the third generation of the iPhone since January 9, 2007.

-- 
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread Pat Farrell
bruce wrote:
> running on a computer somewhere on the network, then that would truly be
> a big step forward.

Its really, a big step forward.


-- 
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread ghostrider

squeez-er;495219 Wrote: 
> The thing is, I -don't- want todays tech (Touch) even if I could get it
> at discounted price right now. The price isn't my biggest problem, the
> features are. I'm willing to pay if I get something in return. The Touch
> - for my use - is a step backwards.

I guess you're out of luck and have two choices. Buy a bunch of SB3's
and hoard them until they are in great demand or find a competitive
solution. :rolleyes:


-- 
ghostrider

ghostrider's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=18959
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread toby10

squeez-er;495219 Wrote: 
> Lol, technology marches forward, but does it always march in the right
> direction?
> 
> Like I said, many times new technology is developed and sold (and
> bought..) just because it's new. Doesn't mean it's better.
> 
> 
> 
> The thing is, I -don't- want todays tech (Touch) even if I could get it
> at discounted price right now. The price isn't my biggest problem, the
> features are. I'm willing to pay if I get something in return. The Touch
> - for my use - is a step backwards.

For the vast majority of users, YES, the Touch IS the right direction
and YES it IS better.   :)
Agreed, Touch is of no added value to *you*, so as suggested buy used
SB 1/2/3's or wait three years for a lower cost Touch.   *shrug*
My dad only uses AM radio in his car, not fully utilizing the car's 16
speakers or 6 CD changer or USB and iPod inputs.  But that's what came
with the car.   :)


-- 
toby10

toby10's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12553
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread aubuti

usch;495197 Wrote: 
> Correct, but the pixel resolution is totally irrelevant when viewed from
> the distance. I already cannot distinguish individual pixels on the
> current VFD when I am more than five feet away, it's just the physical
> size that counts here.
> 
> Interesting, that doesn't seem to exist in the desktop SqueezePlay
> skin. Could you post some screenshots of the various Now Playing
> screens? Maybe that could change my mind. :)
I disagree that pixel resolution is irrelevant. You know the point
isn't to see the individual pixels. Packing the pixels tighter on the
SBT means you can make equally legible text in less horizontal space. 

Here's the NP screen with only text, no album art, side by side with a
Classic. When I get a chance, I'll do another one using a track with a
longer title, so you can judge better the amount of truncation on the
SBT. http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?p=492388#post492388


-- 
aubuti

aubuti's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2074
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread squeez-er

toby10;495218 Wrote: 
> Could be, though there was a recent 20% discount offered for Touch
> pre-orders, dunno the details or if it was available to EU customers.
> I guess you and I will both be shopping in 3 years, you for the
> discounted Touch, me for the discounted 3rd generation 64 gb iTouch.
> If we want todays tech at discounted prices, we must wait.   :)

The thing is, I -don't- want todays tech (Touch) even if I could get it
at discounted price right now. The price isn't my biggest problem, the
features are. I'm willing to pay if I get something in return. The Touch
- for my use - is a step backwards.


-- 
squeez-er

squeez-er's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=32438
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread squeez-er

toby10;495212 Wrote: 
> Many miss the simplicity of physical dials on car radios.  Technology
> marches forward, get on board or be run over.   :)

Lol, technology marches forward, but does it always march in the right
direction?

Like I said, many times new technology is developed and sold (and
bought..) just because it's new. Doesn't mean it's better.


-- 
squeez-er

squeez-er's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=32438
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread toby10

squeez-er;495201 Wrote: 
> As much as I would love to believe that the Touch will 1/3
> cheaper after a year, I can't. My guess would be 3 years.

Could be, though there was a recent 20% discount offered for Touch
pre-orders, dunno the details or if it was available to EU customers.
I guess you and I will both be shopping in 3 years, you for the
discounted Touch, me for the discounted 3rd generation 64 gb iTouch.
If we want todays tech at discounted prices, we must wait.   :)


-- 
toby10

toby10's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12553
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread toby10

squeez-er;495201 Wrote: 
> I'm sure what you say is correct. It's just too bad that those who want
> a player like SB3 (just a player with clear and large display) are left
> out.Even if they buy the Touch, they are getting a smaller
> display...

Many miss the simplicity of physical dials on car radios.  Technology
marches forward, get on board or be run over.   :)


-- 
toby10

toby10's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12553
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread toby10

usch;495192 Wrote: 
> .
> If one of the reasons to discontinue the Classic was that the displays
> are no longer made, couldn't they build a similar player around a
> current one like this: '24064-CCFL'
> (http://www.datasheetarchive.com/pdf-datasheets/Datasheets-27/DSA-534851.pdf)?
> These would be totally sufficient to display "now playing" information,
> they are almost as wide as the Classic display, and not much taller.

Who knows, maybe they have several other players in Beta right now, I
dunno.
But I doubt it.  I think they have the width of players they want to
have and are willing to support.  I'd bet the Touch is the only "SB3
like" (i.e. with screen, no speakers) player we will see for quite a
while. :(


-- 
toby10

toby10's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12553
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread toby10

usch;495192 Wrote: 
> ..
> I don't like the upright form factor of the Classic and the Touch - my
> stereo rack is more than 10" deep, but there is only so much vertical
> space left. My SB1 fits there neatly, as would an SB2, the Classic would
> already look crammed in, and the Touch might not fit at all..

The nice thing about the Touch and SB3 is their light, small form
factor (thin client design).  So light in fact, that like you I was
limited on AV rack space for my SB3, so I created a "floating" SB3
taking up no space on the AV rack shelves.  Using just a wire hanger and
a flat black piece of rubber tubing my SB3 is "floating" centered above
the top shelf AV devices.  All wires (support hanger, power, RJ45,
Optical) are all hidden inside the black tubing (I'm a wire FANATIC! 
You don't see *any* wires in my home if at all possible).  The support
hanger is in no way visible and is mounted to the back of the AV rack,
SB3 is at eye level and angled slightly down for easy reading of the
display and no glare issues.

This is NOT a good setup if you intend to use the Touch's screen touch
capabilities though as the player will move around as you touch the
screen.   :(


-- 
toby10

toby10's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12553
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread squeez-er

trouty00;495165 Wrote: 
> Duet??

I completely forgot that. But no, I wouldn't want to get the Duet
either because it doesn't have a screen and I have heard bad things
about the remote (last time from you ;)).

aubuti;495166 Wrote: 
> 
> I think you still don't quite understand the feature. Plug an external
> USB drive with your music library into the SB Touch and it appears on
> your network as a shared network drive, and all of the music is
> available to the Touch and any other SB in the house. How does this go
> "...against the whole idea of networked music player"?

I do understand this - but the list contained USB-drive and server
separately, so I assumed the first one referred to the simple "plug &
play" function that almost all music players have (you can plug
USB-stick into the device and it will play whatever music is stored on
it). Sorry the confusion.

aubuti;495166 Wrote: 
> Yes, you can control them through the web ui, if you want to be sitting
> at your computer while listening to music. I would say the whole idea of
> SBs is to get the user away from the computer.

And I would agree. That's why I control the music from my phone (any
phone with a decent web browser does the job) or my 9 inch laptop.

aubuti;495166 Wrote: 
> 
> You can't find an SB3 at any retailers? What about eBay? Last I looked
> there were quite a few.

I guess I was a little unfair there - yes, I can still find the SB3
from some retailers. What I meant was that as it is no longer
manufactured, there's no guarantee how long it will be available or how
easy it will be to find one.

toby10;495178 Wrote: 
> Yes, for you it's not worth it.  I'm just pointing out the *many*
> advantages of the Touch over the (now discontinued) SB3, and these
> advantages will drive sales and generate new interest in the entire SB
> lineup.  And all for the same introduction price point as the original
> SB3.

I'm sure what you say is correct. It's just too bad that those who want
a player like SB3 (just a player with clear and large display) are left
out.Even if they buy the Touch, they are getting a smaller display.

toby10;495178 Wrote: 
> They are essentially taking the SB3 (which was wildly popular at $300 to
> many people), added numerous features and functions, and are offering it
> at the same introductory price point.

Oh yeah, the Touch would be awesome for $300. But not for *$438.6*
which is the price in Europe. The best price I could find for SB3 at the
moment was $248 (from a retail store). 

toby10;495178 Wrote: 
> Your options:  buy used SB 1/2/3's, wait a year or so for the Touch
> price to drop to current SB3 prices, buy lesser capable streaming
> devices.

As much as I would love to believe that the Touch will 1/3 cheaper
after a year, I can't. My guess would be 3 years.


-- 
squeez-er

squeez-er's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=32438
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread usch

aubuti;495176 Wrote: 
> You may already be aware of this, but just in case you're not, the
> Touch's LCD is higher resolution than the SB2/SB3/Classic's.
Correct, but the pixel resolution is totally irrelevant when viewed
from the distance. I already cannot distinguish individual pixels on the
current VFD when I am more than five feet away, it's just the physical
size that counts here.

aubuti;495176 Wrote: 
> NB: For comparison I'm referring to the Touch's Now Playing screen that
> is text only, with no album art. Presumably that's what someone who
> wants maximum text real estate would use.
Interesting, that doesn't seem to exist in the desktop SqueezePlay
skin. Could you post some screenshots of the various Now Playing
screens? Maybe that could change my mind. :)


-- 
usch

usch's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=33389
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread usch

bruce;495103 Wrote: 
> So as long as you have one Touch on your network, most any player
> (Touch, Receiver, Transporter, Boom, Radio, or SB3/2) on your network
> can play music from any hard drive(s) on your network, without any
> server running?
Not from -any- drive on the network, only from USB drives that are
directly connected to the Touch. But it works the other way around, the
Touch can act as a NAS and other computers can access that drive over
the network.

pfarrell;495076 Wrote: 
> The Touch is much more than a Classic with a touch screen. Its a
> computer.
That's exactly the point. The SB3 is discontinued, and there is no
direct replacement. Of course you can ignore the built-in server and the
touch screen and just use the Touch as a player, but that's like buying
a house and then living in a single room only.

I would really like to use it as a standalone server, but its
capabilities seem way too limited, given that plugins are not fully
supported and you already need a plugin to do such simple things as
automatic playlists based on track ratings.

In combination it feels overpriced as a player, and underpowered as a
server.


pfarrell;495076 Wrote: 
> What folks tend to forget is that the Classic is just a new name on a
> SB3, and the SB3 is just a new plastic package on the SB2.
To be honest, of all types of SBs that have ever been made I like the
SB2 best. I would immediately buy one, but they seem really hard to get,
even harder than the SB1.

I don't like the upright form factor of the Classic and the Touch - my
stereo rack is more than 10" deep, but there is only so much vertical
space left. My SB1 fits there neatly, as would an SB2, the Classic would
already look crammed in, and the Touch might not fit at all.

If one of the reasons to discontinue the Classic was that the displays
are no longer made, couldn't they build a similar player around a
current one like this: '24064-CCFL'
(http://www.datasheetarchive.com/pdf-datasheets/Datasheets-27/DSA-534851.pdf)?
These would be totally sufficient to display "now playing" information,
they are almost as wide as the Classic display, and not much taller.


-- 
usch

usch's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=33389
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread toby10

squeez-er;495158 Wrote: 
> ..
> The fact that I now need to pay much more for things I don't need still
> remains however. 300 euros is right on the edge of being WAY too much
> for a device like SB's. This whole thing actually started when I
> considered giving SB as a christmas present and then noticed the price
> difference (not to mention the fact that right now I can't buy a
> Squeezebox without speakers at all!). But as always, this is just my
> opinion.

Yes, for you it's not worth it.  I'm just pointing out the *many*
advantages of the Touch over the (now discontinued) SB3, and these
advantages will drive sales and generate new interest in the entire SB
lineup.  And all for the same introduction price point as the original
SB3.

They are essentially taking the SB3 (which was wildly popular at $300
to many people), added numerous features and functions, and are offering
it at the same introductory price point.

Your options:  buy used SB 1/2/3's, wait a year or so for the Touch
price to drop to current SB3 prices, buy lesser capable streaming
devices.

I'd love to buy a 3rd generation 64gb iTouch at the same price as what
the 1st generation 8gb iTouch is selling for.  But then reality sets
in.   :)


-- 
toby10

toby10's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12553
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread aubuti

usch;495168 Wrote: 
> I am not so much worried about the readability (the font seems
> sufficiently big), just about the amount of text that can be displayed
> without scrolling. I have set all my SBs to "Scroll once and stop"
> because I find the constant movement in the corner of my eye somewhat
> annyoing.
> 
> Hm. Now that I think of it I'm not sure if that setting is even
> available on the Touch, I can't seem to find it in the SqueezePlay
> menus.
You may already be aware of this, but just in case you're not, the
Touch's LCD is higher resolution than the SB2/SB3/Classic's. So the
"width of the Touch display is only about 60% of the Classic" comparison
is misleading, because even with its larger fonts the Touch accommodates
a lot more than 60% of the text that the Classic shows with 'standard'
fontsize. I haven't measured it, but I would guesstimate that it's
probably around 85%. Definitely less than 100%, but nowhere near as bad
as 60%. 

Also, don't forget that the Touch has 3 text lines that are potentially
readable from across the room (depending on distance, lighting, and
eyesight), whereas the top line of the Classic in 'standard' font is too
small to read from more than a few feet away.

NB: For comparison I'm referring to the Touch's Now Playing screen that
is text only, with no album art. Presumably that's what someone who
wants maximum text real estate would use.


-- 
aubuti

aubuti's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2074
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread usch

pfarrell;495043 Wrote: 
> I have not tried mine at a typical living room distance. For example, my
> Transporter is about 15 feet from my favorite listening chair. But other
> beta testers claim that it is easily read at 10 feet or so. I don't have
> 10 feet long 3 meters to our euro-zone friends), so I've never worried
> about that part. I guess as a pure replacement for the Classic, it could
> raise some concerns.
I am not so much worried about the readability (the font seems
sufficiently big), just about the amount of text that can be displayed
without scrolling. I have set all my SBs to "Scroll once and stop"
because I find the constant movement in the corner of my eye somewhat
annyoing.

Hm. Now that I think of it I'm not sure if that setting is even
available on the Touch, I can't seem to find it in the SqueezePlay
menus.


-- 
usch

usch's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=33389
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread aubuti

squeez-er;495158 Wrote: 
> The fact that something is old is a bad excuse to make something new. I
> don't care if it's old - I only care if it works. And it does exactly
> what I want from my wifi music player to do - play music and show what's
> playing even when I'm further away.
It may be a bad excuse, but that's the basic MO for consumer
capitalism. Old models are constantly replaced by new models. Sometimes
the newer models are better, sometimes not. For electronics a common
pattern is to keep the same price point and add features/capacity. If
you like your SB3 and think you might want more, buy them now.

squeez-er;495158 Wrote: 
> - USB input: this is a basic function for any music player these days,
> and kinda goes against the whole idea of networked music player
I think you still don't quite understand the feature. Plug an external
USB drive with your music library into the SB Touch and it appears on
your network as a shared network drive, and all of the music is
available to the Touch and any other SB in the house. How does this go
"...against the whole idea of networked music player"?

squeez-er;495158 Wrote: 
> - Controller for other players: I have never had multiple SB's so can't
> comment much about this.. Can't you already control all SB's through
> web-interface? And if you have different music playing on different
> rooms, it would be kinda pointless to control them from somewhere else
> than the room in question.
Yes, you can control them through the web ui, if you want to be sitting
at your computer while listening to music. I would say the whole idea of
SBs is to get the user away from the computer. I have ~10 SBs and don't
find it at all 'pointless' to control players from a different room. I
usually do it from within the same room, but not always. Also, I am sure
that some people won't even connect the SB Touch directly to their audio
system at all, and instead use it exclusively for controlling other
players. At least one of the other beta testers has said as much, and
one of the Logitech staff has posted photos of his wall-mounted SB Touch
that acts only as a controller. Seems like a waste of good audio outputs
to me, but that's what works in their settings.

squeez-er;495158 Wrote: 
> The fact that I now need to pay much more for things I don't need still
> remains however. 300 euros is right on the edge of being WAY too much
> for a device like SB's. This whole thing actually started when I
> considered giving SB as a christmas present and then noticed the price
> difference (not to mention the fact that right now I can't buy a
> Squeezebox without speakers at all!). But as always, this is just my
> opinion.
You can't find an SB3 at any retailers? What about eBay? Last I looked
there were quite a few.


-- 
aubuti

aubuti's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2074
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread trouty00

squeez-er;495158 Wrote: 
> This whole thing actually started when I considered giving SB as a
> christmas present and then noticed the price difference (not to mention
> the fact that right now I can't buy a Squeezebox without speakers at
> all!). But as always, this is just my opinion.


Duet??

all interesting reading though, i have a duet right now which i think
will be retired to the bedroom and a couple of computer speakers hooked
up. I didnt really like the duet controller, just a bit slow and more
complicated than it needed to be  for single player control (probably
should have bought the SB3, but now with touch on its way glad i didnt)

A Radio is on its way for the kitchen which will be perfect i think and
then the touch will be main lounge player but more importantly will be
the server too and the fact from what im reading will turn any usb drive
into a NAS, that sounds good, anyone know if it will have full nas
capability and be able to share all files or just music? wonder what the
speed will be like?

as for the touch screen, will it used? NEVER - will be stuffed under
the TV and i will be using the IR remote as it will be speedier than
ipeng.


-- 
trouty00

trouty00's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=30875
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread squeez-er

usch;495041 Wrote: 
> I personally would have preferred a decent 7" display without the touch
> capabilities. After all, it comes with a remote (unlike the Radio), and
> the Classic did not have any buttons either.

You nailed it. I guess the touch capability is the kind of gimmick that
sells stuff - but usually won't be used after the excitement of new
technology wears off.

pfarrell;495076 Wrote: 
> 
> What folks tend to forget is that the Classic is just a new name on a
> SB3, and the SB3 is just a new plastic package on the SB2. Its really
> old. Its ancient, almost prehistoric, in computer peripheral times.
> The
> underlying technology of the Classic/SB3/SB2 is nearly too old to
> contemplate. Sure, its dirt cheap, but so is a Pentium 4 computer.

The fact that something is old is a bad excuse to make something new. I
don't care if it's old - I only care if it works. And it does exactly
what I want from my wifi music player to do - play music and show what's
playing even when I'm further away.

ModelCitizen;495091 Wrote: 
> Yes they will. They can add music to it via a Samba network share or by
> plugging the drive directly into their PC.

Now that is something I can agree is an advantage for the Touch (again,
where is this mentioned outside the forums?). If the user doesn't need
plugins or the web-UI, then this is front page news IMHO. The fact that
Squeezeboxes needs a computer or other platform (NAS) to run the server
is the most limiting factor I can think of at the moment.

But since I DO need plugins and the web-UI, this won't cut it for me.

toby10;495121 Wrote: 
> Touch advantages over SB3:
> -  color display (album art on player)
> -  touch screen
> -  USB input (used as a server or quick Plug & Play usage)
> -  built in server (with limitations)
> -  24/96 support
> -  better DAC
> -  acts as a Controller for all other SB players

- Album art: album art is nice, but I wouldn't pay for it - for a long
time now I have not thought my music as "albums". I have playlists that
contain songs from many different albums and artists, thus I don't
really care of the whole "album" concept. But maybe this is just me.
- Touch screen: touch screen will most likely be useless for me
(although I reserve the right for changing my mind:)). Let me ask you
this: you are laying on the couch listening to music and you want to
skip a song/adjust the volume. Do you get up to do this, or use the
remote that you can reach from the sofa? I can't think of any scenario
where I would want to control my music player without a remote, other
than to show off my shiny (or not so shiny, depending on the amount of
fingerprints) touch screen to someone else.
- USB input: this is a basic function for any music player these days,
and kinda goes against the whole idea of networked music player
- Built in server: Good!
- 24/96: don't really know anything about this.. But I'm happy with my
current sound quality.
- better DAC: Isn't this only used with analog output? Correct me if
I'm wrong..
- Controller for other players: I have never had multiple SB's so can't
comment much about this.. Can't you already control all SB's through
web-interface? And if you have different music playing on different
rooms, it would be kinda pointless to control them from somewhere else
than the room in question.

Thanks for the good discussions everyone, I needed some opinions about
this since it's been bugging me for a long time :D

The fact that I now need to pay much more for things I don't need still
remains however. 300 euros is right on the edge of being WAY too much
for a device like SB's. This whole thing actually started when I
considered giving SB as a christmas present and then noticed the price
difference (not to mention the fact that right now I can't buy a
Squeezebox without speakers at all!). But as always, this is just my
opinion.


-- 
squeez-er

squeez-er's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=32438
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread toby10

Touch advantages over SB3:
-  color display (album art on player)
-  touch screen
-  USB input (used as a server or quick Plug & Play usage)
-  built in server (with limitations)
-  24/96 support
-  better DAC
-  acts as a Controller for all other SB players

For 1/3 more cost than today's "close out" sale price of an SB3, and
the same original MSRP of $300, I'd say it's a bargain!

Wait a year or two and the Touch will be 1/3 less than current MSRP.


-- 
toby10

toby10's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12553
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread JJZolx

bruce;495103 Wrote: 
> If Logitech could market the Squeezebox line as not requiring a server
> to play one's music collection, just an external hard drive (which they
> could even sell as an option) connected to a Touch, and all the server
> functions could be handled by a combination of the Touch, the other
> players, and iTunes (or similar software to easily manage the music)
> running on a computer somewhere on the network, then that would truly be
> a big step forward.

I'm sure they're counting on it selling Squeezeboxes.  Whether or not
it's really a step forward remains to be seen.  I think there will be
more than a few people disappointed in the limitations of the server. 
They can still run the 'big' server with all the capabilities if they
want, but you know they'll insist on both - all the former capabilities
and running on the tiny little computer in the Touch.


-- 
JJZolx

Jim

JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread bruce

If Logitech could market the Squeezebox line as not requiring a server
to play one's music collection, just an external hard drive (which they
could even sell as an option) connected to a Touch, and all the server
functions could be handled by a combination of the Touch, the other
players, and iTunes (or similar software to easily manage the music)
running on a computer somewhere on the network, then that would truly be
a big step forward.


-- 
bruce

bruce's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2955
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread Mnyb

bruce;495095 Wrote: 
> Are you saying that if you have a Touch with an external drive attached
> to it, the Touch will function as a server for other Squeezeboxes on
> your network? Or can only Touches on your network access that drive?
> 
> How would you perform the functions that are currently part of server
> management? Are those all accessible from individual players or the
> player that is connected to the external drive?

It will function as a server for other squeezeboxes too, within some
limits.
I think the duet and SB3/2 and transporter is supported but the old
slimp3 is not supported ?

And the server on the Touch do not support transcoding. so it has
limits on what file formats to support for older players. The Touch do
support more file formats natively than any older squeezebox, making
less demands on the server this will be beneficial for some radio
stations too that have until now required a local server to play on any
squeezebox.

I have no idea on how to configure a multi-player setup from the touch
screen I'm not a beta tester so I have not seen one irl yet.
And the software is still developed as we speak.


-- 
Mnyb


Main hifi: SB3 (soon to replaced by a Touch :) It is on preorder)
Bedroom/Office: Boom
Kitchen: Receiver (soon to be replaced by my SB3 and the SBRto be
stuffed in a box in the attic )
I use a Controller various ir-remotes and a Eee-PC with squeezeplay to
controll this

Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread JJZolx

bruce;495095 Wrote: 
> Are you saying that if you have a Touch with an external drive attached
> to it, the Touch will function as a server for other Squeezeboxes on
> your network? Or can only Touches on your network access that drive?

All players.  But with some limitations, such as no web interface, no
plugins, and no transcoding.

> How would you perform the functions that are currently part of server
> management? Are those all accessible from individual players or the
> player that is connected to the external drive?

You can access them from the Touch.  The server management functions
are pretty limited, though.  Scanning is revamped, so that you shouldn't
need to manually launch library scans.  But many of the server settings
that can be accessed in the web interface's manager won't be accessible,
at least not in the initial launch.  I imagine a few might later become
available.


-- 
JJZolx

Jim

JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread bruce

Are you saying that if you have a Touch with an external drive attached
to it, the Touch will function as a server for other Squeezeboxes on
your network? Or can only Touches on your network access that drive?

How would you perform the functions that are currently part of server
management? Are those all accessible from individual players or the
player that is connected to the external drive?


-- 
bruce

bruce's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2955
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread ModelCitizen

"bruce" Wrote: 
> Will people buy an external drive to store their music rather than
> running SlimServer on a PC, and if so, how will they add music to it,
> and will the drive be accessible throughout their network?
> 
Yes they will. They can add music to it via a Samba network share or by
plugging the drive directly into their PC.

MC


-- 
ModelCitizen

Think the third party Squeeze plugins and applets are important?
Then 'vote for bug 14194'
(http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=14194) so more can be
made.

Last.fm/user/ModelCitizen

ModelCitizen's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=446
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread Mnyb

bruce;495081 Wrote: 
> I don't understand the configurations and usage scenarios you're
> anticipating will be a "godsend". How many people carry music around on
> thumb drives as opposed to MP3 players (which don't need a Touch to play
> through a stereo)? Will people buy an external drive to store their
> music rather than running SlimServer on a PC, and if so, how will they
> add music to it, and will the drive be accessible throughout their
> network?
> 
> I agree that setting up and managing a SlimServer is complicated for
> non-techies, but I don't understand how the Touch will help. Maybe I'm
> missing something.
> 
> (Thanks for the rest of your reply, however, which makes sense to me.)

It has samba, so the disc will appear on the network just as any other
NAS .

But the built in server has some limitations, for example no web-UI
wich I think is a mistakes as so many want to use the web-UI for
controlling the device, in this case you are better served by a real
server.

But it has much more options than the SB3 the improved 24/96 digital
out sold it to me. 

It is marketed as costing the same as the SB3 the US price of the Touch
is the same as the original US price for the SB3 .
But nobody told the rest of logitech so it is 1/3 more expensive than
the original SB3 price in most of Europe, this would upset some
(inluding me) but it only expose lack of control and limitations withing
logitech.

Eventually on-line stores will bring the price down.

But in the end of the day,price would not stop me from getting it ?
It costs a mere fraction of the music library that you are supposed to
play on it anyway.


-- 
Mnyb


Main hifi: SB3 (soon to replaced by a Touch :) It is on preorder)
Bedroom/Office: Boom
Kitchen: Receiver (soon to be replaced by my SB3 and the SBRto be
stuffed in a box in the attic )
I use a Controller various ir-remotes and a Eee-PC with squeezeplay to
controll this

Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread bruce

pfarrell;495076 Wrote: 
> 
> The Touch is much more
> than a Classic with a touch screen. Its a computer. Its not really a
> "slim device" as it can do things like read music off of a thumb or
> even
> external disk drive. For folks who already have a SlimServer, the
> ability of the Touch to work as a serverless system may not be all
> that
> critical, but for new users, it will be a godsend.
> 
I don't understand the configurations and usage scenarios you're
anticipating will be a "godsend". How many people carry music around on
thumb drives as opposed to MP3 players (which don't need a Touch to play
through a stereo)? Will people buy an external drive to store their
music rather than running SlimServer on a PC, and if so, how will they
add music to it, and will the drive be accessible throughout their
network?

I agree that setting up and managing a SlimServer is complicated for
non-techies, but I don't understand how the Touch will help. Maybe I'm
missing something.

(Thanks for the rest of your reply, however, which makes sense to me.)


-- 
bruce

bruce's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2955
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread Pat Farrell
bruce wrote:
> I agree that in many scenarios the touch screen is irrelevant. (Both my
> Classics are behind glass.) I hope that either the touch functionality
> is not expensive to include (does anyone know?) or Logitech will
> eventually introduce a cheaper non-touch version. 

Touch screens are commodities these days. The old style screen was very
expensive. I have not looked at the volume pricing, but I expect that a
great, color touch screen is no more expensive than the old VLD screen.

I do not expect (but I have no inside information) that a non-touch
version will ever be made. What I expect is that touch screens will
become ever cheaper as more cell phones and computer monitors include
touch screens.

Focusing on the screen is a bit misguided, IMHO. The Touch is much more
than a Classic with a touch screen. Its a computer. Its not really a
"slim device" as it can do things like read music off of a thumb or even
external disk drive. For folks who already have a SlimServer, the
ability of the Touch to work as a serverless system may not be all that
critical, but for new users, it will be a godsend.

Plus the DAC inside the Touch is better than the one in a Classic, so if
you care about audio quality, you can save the cost of an expensive
external DAC.

Its better. Really. It will be releases soon, as soon as the software is
ready. And I am sure that over time, the price will come down.

What folks tend to forget is that the Classic is just a new name on a
SB3, and the SB3 is just a new plastic package on the SB2. Its really
old. Its ancient, almost prehistoric, in computer peripheral times. The
underlying technology of the Classic/SB3/SB2 is nearly too old to
contemplate. Sure, its dirt cheap, but so is a Pentium 4 computer.


-- 
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-13 Thread bruce

I agree that in many scenarios the touch screen is irrelevant. (Both my
Classics are behind glass.) I hope that either the touch functionality
is not expensive to include (does anyone know?) or Logitech will
eventually introduce a cheaper non-touch version. 

I personally would like a "Non-Touch" with a nice display like the
Touch but larger, so it could be read easily from across a room. But the
Touch display is already larger than old fashioned audio gear displays,
so I don't know how many people would pay for a larger one.


-- 
bruce

bruce's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2955
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-12 Thread Pat Farrell
usch wrote:
> Unfortunately the width of the Touch display is only about 60% of the
> Classic, which means it will require much more scrolling to display the
> same amount of text. All the more when there are touch screen buttons at
> the same time and you want to show the cover artwork, too.

I think the measurement is what you say, but in my beta testing, I've
not found it a problem. The screen is beautiful, and more than large
enough for viewing at any distance that you can still reach the touch
screen.

I have not tried mine at a typical living room distance. For example, my
Transporter is about 15 feet from my favorite listening chair. But other
beta testers claim that it is easily read at 10 feet or so. I don't have
10 feet long 3 meters to our euro-zone friends), so I've never worried
about that part. I guess as a pure replacement for the Classic, it could
raise some concerns.


-- 
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-12 Thread usch

pfarrell;494938 Wrote: 
> The display on the Classic has been the problem, its expensive and has
> been End-of-life'd by its manufacturer.
Unfortunately the width of the Touch display is only about 60% of the
Classic, which means it will require much more scrolling to display the
same amount of text. All the more when there are touch screen buttons at
the same time and you want to show the cover artwork, too.

I personally would have preferred a decent 7" display without the touch
capabilities. After all, it comes with a remote (unlike the Radio), and
the Classic did not have any buttons either.


-- 
usch

usch's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=33389
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-12 Thread JJZolx

squeez-er;494945 Wrote: 
> Would it be a good idea to tell how it's better on the Squeezebox
> website rather than having to read the forums?

You're assuming that visitors to the web site are familiar with past
products.  Logitech isn't at all concerned about those customers. 
They'll make their money on new ones or not at all.


-- 
JJZolx

Jim

JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-12 Thread aubuti

squeez-er;494952 Wrote: 
> Sorry I forgot to mention that I didn't compare the "discontinued price"
> to the Touch. When I bought the classic (while it was still under
> production) I paid 200€ for it. 
> 
> Didn't know the MSRP was indentical, thanks for the info.
> 
> But then again, that doesn't really matter; all that matters is that
> now the customer has to pay 1/3 more than before. If I would be that
> customer, I would feel like I'm paying more for something I don't need
> or want.
When the SB3 came out about 4 years ago its street price was around
€300, and it stayed there for a long time. You'll probably be able to
get an SB Touch for €200 after it has been out for 4 years as well.

Besides the touchscreen, the Touch supports hi-res audio files. More
important, it is no longer a "slim device", but a full-fledged computer
that is capable of running the server software itself, ie, don't need an
pc running for local libraries. There are lots of reasons why it could
cost more than an SB3, but actually, the street prices on release will
be the same or nearly the same. 

Re differences between the Boom and Radio, the main ones are pretty
obvious just from looking at the pictures. The Boom is stereo, the Radio
is mono. The Boom has the VFD screen, the Radio has LCD. The Boom's MSRP
is US$300 and the Radio's is US$200 (sorry, don't know Euro prices) --
discounts are available on both.

Btw, the www.logitechsqueezebox.com web site is defunct. It should be
redirecting you to the www.logitech.com site. Either way, both sites do
indeed refer to Squeezebox Server software (see 2 links below), although
it is also clear that they are trying to pitch the computer-less
approach via www.mysqueezebox.com, Rhapsody, etc.

http://www.logitechsqueezebox.com/how-it-works/setting-things-up.html

http://www.logitech.com/index.cfm/speakers_audio/wireless_music_systems/devices/4707&cl=us,en


-- 
aubuti

aubuti's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2074
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-12 Thread squeez-er

snarlydwarf;494948 Wrote: 
> The Classic is discontinued... so, is it a surprise it is cheaper?
> 
> The MSRP is identical.

Sorry I forgot to mention that I didn't compare the "discontinued
price" to the Touch. When I bought the classic (while it was still under
production) I paid 200€ for it. 

Didn't know the MSRP was indentical, thanks for the info.

But then again, that doesn't really matter; all that matters is that
now the customer has to pay 1/3 more than before. If I would be the
customer, I would feel like I'm paying more for something I don't need
or want.


-- 
squeez-er

squeez-er's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=32438
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-12 Thread snarlydwarf

squeez-er;494945 Wrote: 
> 
> The price will first be set by the manufacturer, then after some time
> it will drop on the market. How much depends on many factors. The
> current price that I have seen for the Touch is around 300€ which is 1/3
> more than Classic.

The Classic is discontinued... so, is it a surprise it is cheaper?

The MSRP is identical.


> 
> Expensive? Yet the new replacement is much more expensive than Classic?

Again, you're comparing what is effectively a liquidation price to
MSRP.


-- 
snarlydwarf

snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-12 Thread squeez-er

Thanks for the reply.

pfarrell;494938 Wrote: 
> 
> The Touch is the replacement for the Classic, or will be once its
> released. The price will be set by the market when its released and
> available.

The price will first be set by the manufacturer, then after some time
it will drop on the market. How much depends on many factors. The
current price that I have seen for the Touch is around 300€ which is 1/3
more than Classic.

pfarrell;494938 Wrote: 
> 
> If you search the forums, you will find many discussions on how the
> Touch replaces the Classic and is better in many ways.
> 

Would it be a good idea to tell how it's better on the Squeezebox
website rather than having to read the forums?

pfarrell;494938 Wrote: 
> 
> The display on the Classic has been the problem, its expensive and has
> been End-of-life'd by its manufacturer.
> 

Expensive? Yet the new replacement is much more expensive than Classic?


-- 
squeez-er

squeez-er's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=32438
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-12 Thread Pat Farrell
squeez-er wrote:
> I bought my Squeezebox Classic some 6 months ago when the Radio and
> Touch weren't reality yet. Since then, I have been a happy user of my
> Classic with QNAP TS-239 working as a server and would recommend this
> setup easily for anyone asking.

> There doesn't seem to be a direct replacement for Classic. If I now
> wanted to have a player that clearly displays what is playing, has a
> remote and no speakers, I would have to pay 1/3 more for either Duet or
> Touch.

> What's your opinion on all this?

The Touch is the replacement for the Classic, or will be once its
released. The price will be set by the market when its released and
available.

If you search the forums, you will find many discussions on how the
Touch replaces the Classic and is better in many ways.

The display on the Classic has been the problem, its expensive and has
been End-of-life'd by its manufacturer.


-- 
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss


[slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes

2009-12-12 Thread squeez-er

I bought my Squeezebox Classic some 6 months ago when the Radio and
Touch weren't reality yet. Since then, I have been a happy user of my
Classic with QNAP TS-239 working as a server and would recommend this
setup easily for anyone asking.

These days when I go to look at the current lineup of Squeezebox'es I
feel confused.

There doesn't seem to be a direct replacement for Classic. If I now
wanted to have a player that clearly displays what is playing, has a
remote and no speakers, I would have to pay 1/3 more for either Duet or
Touch.

Duet doesn't have a screen (the remote has, but you can't see whats
playing without finding the remote and pressing a key) and Touch has a
touch screen I would never use (why would I use the sceen when I have
the remote and/or my laptop?).

Even when looking through the product matrix
(http://www.logitechsqueezebox.com/product_matrix.html) I can't quite
tell the major difference between Radio and Boom. Is Boom just an
improved version of Radio?

I can't be the only one who feels like Logitech is releasing these
products just to get something new out. I feel like they are ruining the
lineup (by making it difficult and confusing to choose between them)
which is shame.

Another thing I find strange is that nowhere on the Squeezebox website 
(http://www.logitechsqueezebox.com/) do they talk about having a server
for Squeezebox. I couldn't imagine using Squeezebox with my desktop PC
only (laptop, maybe). In fact, it feels like they are trying to avoid
the subject of having to have your PC on all the time altogether.

I guess the Squeezebox concept is rather hard to sell to non-technical
people.

What's your opinion on all this?


-- 
squeez-er

squeez-er's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=32438
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534

___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss