Pat Farrell;173950 Wrote:
The price of any product is the sum of BOM cost, engineering cost to
design, marketing cost, returns, support, marketing, etc. Most
audiophile manufacturers have tiny volume, typically only a million
dollars a year or so of revenue, which is not a lot of units when
jmourik;174047 Wrote:
How much lower grade is the AKM4395 that's used in the Stello DA100?
That unit sells for $700...
Without experience with either, I'd say not much. According to the data
sheets '96 does DSD and has a slightly higher sample rate. They both
have differential output,
Skunk;173930 Wrote:
Black and Decker doesn't make high end drills!
Dewalt does!
Dewalt is owned by BD!!!
And yet... Logitech is tossing the Slim Devices brand. See my other
post on this subject.
JW
--
FatElvis2000
Mark Lanctot;173901 Wrote:
Really? They can hardly meet demand. It's far exceeded their
expectations.
Also you can bet there's a lot more margin in the Transporter than the
Squeezebox. 'Course you don't get the volume...
Lots of companies have lost lots of money catering to the classes
FatElvis2000;174192 Wrote:
If I were an investor in Slim, I'd be asking serious questions about how
development resources are being allocated.
If they would/will, I'm sure the will screw up the company (division
of Mousitech) big time! ;-)
--
P Floding
Eric Carroll;173940 Wrote:
The price of many of the components, such as many of the DACs are
available on the Internet. Check out some of the volume pricing - the
cost of DACs is not as high as you seem to think.
I think there is lots of margin in the Tp. And I bought it anyway.
I never
FatElvis2000;174198 Wrote:
I suggest you read any book on Brand Equity by David Aaker, If you have
not done so.. If you have, well...
Percetions (and targeting) are everything.
Actually, I have. Just to be clear the If you have, well... was the
windup to the whole rest of the post. I
I've been avoiding this thread. Why? I don't know. Well, I finally read
it today and it looked kind of familiar.
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?p=162233
Great minds think alike.
--
konut
konut's Profile:
JJZolx;173203 Wrote:
- Transporter quality electronics and internal power supply
- Single display
- No knob or other buttons
- (possibly) Lose the balanced outputs and perhaps some or all of the
digital input connections
- Simple, but nicely finished all steel case with aluminum
adamslim;173716 Wrote:
The problem with this idea is a commercial one - were Slim to bring out
a product that sounds exactly the same as the Transporter, but is less
than half the price, TP owners will not be particularly impressed.
I actually agree in that your requirements as listed are
adamslim;173716 Wrote:
The problem with this idea is a commercial one - were Slim to bring out
a product that sounds exactly the same as the Transporter, but is less
than half the price, TP owners will not be particularly impressed
Unfortunately for SD, they don't have a monopoly. If
RaK;173193 Wrote:
I was wondering why nobody suggests a transporter sized box including
some (100GB) disk space and a running slimserver. Ideally including a
SB3 functionality.
There is definately a market for this kind of device - look at the
Olive line. It includes ripping, storage,
USAudio;172714 Wrote:
Just finished reading a review of the Transporter in Stereophile
magazine and the article reinforced something I (and I'm sure many
others) have been thinking about for sometime. Slim Devices needs a
player that fits somewhere between the SqueezeBox and Transporter.
FatElvis2000;173898 Wrote:
Can't imagine much money is being made here, if even helping Slim break
even.
Really? They can hardly meet demand. It's far exceeded their
expectations.
Also you can bet there's a lot more margin in the Transporter than the
Squeezebox. 'Course you don't get the
FatElvis2000;173898 Wrote:
Logitech doesn't make high-end stereo componentry!
Black and Decker doesn't make high end drills!
Dewalt does!
Dewalt is owned by BD!!!
--
Skunk
Skunk's Profile:
Mark Lanctot;173901 Wrote:
...a high-end testbed that pioneers certain concepts which eventually
trickle down to the mainstream products. Slim Devices have in fact
specifically said so. And they're not much for saying things about
upcoming products, so this speaks volumes.Bring it on! I'd
FatElvis2000;173898 Wrote:
Logitech doesn't make high-end stereo componentry!
I suggest you check out Christensen's book The Innovator's Dilemma if
you have not done so. If you have, well...
The packetization of audio is a classic disruptive technology. It
follows directly on the disruption
jmourik;173932 Wrote:
Bring it on! I'd be so happy if they did that, so I can stop worrying
about getting an outboard dac for my sb2!
It'll be interesting to see which DAC they go with for any new player.
Will they stick with Burr-Brown/TI? Or will they move on to a
lower-grade AKM than
FatElvis2000;173898 Wrote:
Can't imagine much money is being made here, if even helping Slim break
even.
The price of many of the components, such as many of the DACs are
available on the Internet. Check out some of the volume pricing - the
cost of DACs is not as high as you seem to think.
I
Eric Carroll wrote:
FatElvis2000;173898 Wrote:
Can't imagine much money is being made here, if even helping Slim break
even.
The price of many of the components, such as many of the DACs are
available on the Internet. Check out some of the volume pricing - the
cost of DACs is not as high as
Pat,
I agree with your points - you highlighted many of the costs that
impact margin. Allocation of cost (how much of department X goes to
what product) is some of the toughest business discussions to have.
Like you I have a Transporter and two Squeezeboxes and actively use
Softsqueeze. That
Eric Carroll wrote:
But let me ask you something: where did you buy your Tp and SBs? At a
high end audio store?
Direct from Slim.
The SB will be the mass market approach. I have been showing some
friends how to use SBs to avoid speaker cabling their new house build.
One SB per room without
Without trying to design the next generation SB4 (which I'd expect would
be similar or lower in price compared to the SB3) and without actually
_adding_ to the features (which is the wrong direction if you wish to
lower the Transporter cost) my suggestion would be:
- Transporter quality
JJZolx;173203 Wrote:
Without trying to design the next generation SB4 (which I'd expect would
be similar or lower in price compared to the SB3) and without actually
_adding_ to the features (which is the wrong direction if you wish to
lower the Transporter cost) my suggestion would be...
I
)p(;172835 Wrote:
My suggestion, add 2 little high quality class-d amps inside the
transporter case. Icepower based modules and power supplies can be
really small and still sound very very good. Result one very great
integrated network player amp...all what one needs in one nice package.
One possibility is to make a boombox or headset with wifi built in,
allowing you to access squeezenetwork, internet radio, pandora, your
own networked music, etc. As streaming music services and public wifi
continue to spread, I think such a thing could become very, very
popular - it would be
On the other hand, I do not currently have an external DAC. Count me in the
camp of people who intend to purchase a Transporter someday because of the
quality internal DAC, so I don't have to put money towards that.
On 1/22/07, tonyptony
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The Smokester;172817 Wrote:
Guys
I am following this thread for quite a while now and I was wondering
why nobody suggests a transporter sized box including some (100GB)
disk space and a running slimserver. Ideally including a SB3
functionality.
Dont know if this is an easy task because of computer/harddisks
interfearing
I like the idea of having the display on the remote instead of on the
player. The remote is always in your hand or nearby when the system is
playing, while the SB may be across a large room where the display isn't
visible.
Putting a display in the remote means it has to have wifi, and unless
USAudio;172714 Wrote:
Summary:
- Simple but still high-end looking main player unit with power
indicator and angled recharging slot on top.
- High-end internal DAC and components offering Transporter-like
sound.
- Rechargable LCD wireless controller.
- Priced $1000 - $1200
So you want
adamslim;172740 Wrote:
So you want TP sound quality with a better remote. Sir, I feel you are
setting yourself up for disappointment!
I don't see why, I think you greatly oversimplified by posting. I'd
even settle for sound quality similar to SB3+quality external DAC
combo, but with the
I've hung around the audiophiles list long enough to know that the quality
DAC alone could easily cost $1000.
I agree that the remote control idea of yours is good, but I think the
$1000-$1200 target is unlikely.
On 1/21/07, USAudio [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
adamslim;172740 Wrote:
So you
The Sonos 80 bundle will give you your LCD remote and wireless
connections for under a grand, and there are lots of great DACs both
new and used out there for under $500.
USAudio;172714 Wrote:
J
Summary:
- Simple but still high-end looking main player unit with power
indicator and angled
You pay peanuts, you get monkeys!
--
95bcwh
95bcwh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4358
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31935
I already had an expensive DAC when I purchased the Squeezebox v3. It
sounds great. Now I have discovered Studio Master downloads which are
sampled at 24 bit, 88 kHz and beyond. The SB only samples up to 48 kHz
so I end up downsampling. (Still sounds even better.)
To get sampling to 96 kHz I
I'm using the Harmony 880 remote, and lovin' it, so the remote part
doesn't do it for me. I do like the rest :-) I'd love to have a
sb2/3-ish device, qua size, with the dac part of the TP. In my dreams
that's the SB4. Then I won't have to buy that dac...
jan
--
jmourik
36 matches
Mail list logo
