Re: [slim] About the current lineup of Squeezeboxes
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
