bumping this thread in anticipation of feb 2008 and maybe sb4 release ?
Liam
--
soupdragon
[SB3 + NET Audio Sonance DAC ] + [Cyrus CD6] + [JVC QL A75 DD TT + Decca
Super Gold + Hadcock 242 SE + Graham Slee Era Gold V]
- Cyrus Pre-X - Eclipse TD 502A - Eclipse TD 512 speakers
ezkcdude;221921 Wrote:
After almost two years with my SB3, I'm not convinced that an SB4 could
really offer much substantial improvement. Sure, the power supply could
be made linear, or the DAC stage could be upgraded, but most people who
care about such things will inevitably, if not
Skunk;222094 Wrote:
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the war room.
Slim Forums: how we learned to stop worrying and love the music
H
--
adamslim
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have
others
http://www.last.fm/user/AdamSlim/
'Last.fm group:
Damn good movie poster (sorry, now keep fighting)
+---+
|Filename: kubrick-stanley-dr-strangelove-9919428.jpg |
|Download: http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3156|
opaqueice;221842 Wrote:
Patrick Dixon wrote:
It's not.
Can you back that up, or are you simply making assertions?
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the war room.
--
Skunk
Skunk's Profile:
Pat Farrell;221291 Wrote:
325xi wrote:
Pat Farrell;221208 Wrote:
I don't see any point in low jitter, the usual suspects, Benchmark,
Larvy, etc. are immune to jitter.
Please, you first know there's no DAC truly immune to jitter. And
think
about those who have different DACs, more
325xi;221778 Wrote:
And if you mean that those well designed DACs are immune to jitter in
sense of you won't hear it anyways then I'm wrong addressee - I don't
care if I can hear it or not.
http://www.posthorn.com/Images/Bench/Bench_dac1_fft.gif
There are no jitter sidebands down to
opaqueice;221827 Wrote:
The Benchmark appears to be completely immune to jitterIt's not.
opaqueice;221827 Wrote:
... at least in all the tests I'm aware of.
That's because the tests are not designed to show the effects of jitter
on a ASRC DAC.
--
Patrick Dixon
www.at-tunes.co.uk
Pat Farrell;221291 Wrote:
I believe that well designed DACs are practically immune to jitter.
Essentially immune to jitter, etc. So it practice, they are immune to
reasonable sources of jitter.
Well of course you can believe what you like.
The phases 'well designed DAC' and
Patrick Dixon;221834 Wrote:
It's not.
Can you back that up, or are you simply making assertions?
That's because the tests are not designed to show the effects of jitter
on an ASRC DAC.
Why not? Jitter causes sidebands on ASRC DACs.
--
opaqueice
Patrick Dixon wrote:
Well of course you can believe what you like.
The phases 'well designed DAC' and 'practically immune to jitter' are
pretty vague themselves, but if there's a DAC out there that really is
completely immune to jitter, then I have yet to hear it.
The phrases were carefully
After almost two years with my SB3, I'm not convinced that an SB4 could
really offer much substantial improvement. Sure, the power supply could
be made linear, or the DAC stage could be upgraded, but most people who
care about such things will inevitably, if not invariably, purchase an
external
I think Logitech, and Slim Devices before it, are mad. I would pedalling
this platform like crazy to the world.
The likes of JVC, Sony, Bose, high end audio manufacturers etc etc
could easily integrate the slim server and squeezebox control hardware
/ API into their own lines. The real value
True support for 24/96 or even higher - mostly for sake of
compatibility.
Pat Farrell;221208 Wrote:
I don't see any point in low jitter, the usual suspects, Benchmark,
Larvy, etc. are immune to jitter.
Please, you first know there's no DAC truly immune to jitter. And think
about those who
325xi wrote:
Pat Farrell;221208 Wrote:
I don't see any point in low jitter, the usual suspects, Benchmark,
Larvy, etc. are immune to jitter.
Please, you first know there's no DAC truly immune to jitter. And think
about those who have different DACs, more prone to jitter?
No, I don't know
Pat Farrell;221291 Wrote:
I also do not believe that somewhat lower jitter is a meaningful
requirement. First, its totally vague, and second, if lower is better,
then we need to know how much is bad, and how much it needs to be
reduced to be important.
Stereophile says the jitter
erland;221018 Wrote:
This might be the wrong thread to discuss this, but here we go.
I kind of both agree and disagree.
The recent Linux distributions is so many times better than what Linux
looked like just 2 years back in time. I've only used Ubuntu during the
last years, but as I
Robin Bowes;221015 Wrote:
325xi wrote:[color=blue]
Unix carries too much from legacy systems, starting with vi, which
leads
to adopting legacy work style. Widely available X-apps are so
horrible
that I don't always find them worth the bandwidth they take - and
they
aren't always
darrenyeats;221135 Wrote:
I am not saying Linux is as easy as Win/Mac... But if you're reasonably
technical and curious, then Linux can be seen as an educational
experience. To use it you will learn a lot about computers in general,
e.g. networking, security etc which will help with all OSs
I just ordered a new box to replace my old Dell, with good RAID
controller to accommodate my CD collection and possibly video if I find
something similar to SB to stream DVD... Q6600 cpu, etc. The only OS I'd
ever consider to install there is XP, or Vista when it matures. Sorry.
--
325xi
325xi;221138 Wrote:
:)
I'm more then reasonably technical, and yet I don't understand why
would I chose something that is not as easy as Win/Mac, when I
actually have... Win/Mac?
I find Linux easier than Windows or MacOS... but then I dislike gui's
for anything other than a way to have 20
325xi wrote:
I just ordered a new box to replace my old Dell, with good RAID
controller to accommodate my CD collection and possibly video if I find
something similar to SB to stream DVD... Q6600 cpu, etc. The only OS I'd
ever consider to install there is XP, or Vista when it matures. Sorry.
325xi wrote:
darrenyeats;221135 Wrote:
I am not saying Linux is as easy as Win/Mac... But if you're reasonably
technical and curious, then Linux can be seen as an educational
experience. To use it you will learn a lot about computers in general,
e.g. networking, security etc which will help
For me the dream SB4 would be basically a SB3 WITHOUT the DAC but rather
with a better digital output (of the likes of the transporter, low
jitter, and most importantly 24/96).
If this is driven by an audiophile need, it might not be incompatible
with mass market requirements: look at the
Chinanico wrote:
For me the dream SB4 would be basically a SB3 WITHOUT the DAC but rather
with a better digital output (of the likes of the transporter, low
jitter, and most importantly 24/96).
If this is driven by an audiophile need, it might not be incompatible
with mass market
Robin Bowes wrote:
Chinanico wrote:
For me the dream SB4 would be basically a SB3 WITHOUT the DAC but rather
with a better digital output (of the likes of the transporter, low
jitter, and most importantly 24/96).
True, but the DAC is likely a very small part of the cost of the unit -
the
Pat Farrell;221190 Wrote:
Please, can we get a meaningful subject line on this wildly OT
discussion? It hasn't been about a mythical SB4 in weeks.
SB5.1, please. Lots of channels out (at least 6, but more is better),
Transporter-quality analog.
--
inguz
erland;211495 Wrote:
But...
If I were Logitech and I liked to develop a Windows based solution with
fat device hardware, I have a hard time to motivate why to buy Slim
Devices. From my point of view the two major things that is unique with
Slim Devices as a company are:
- Experience with
Pat Farrell;221006 Wrote:
325xi wrote:
One cannot choose languages and shells working on existing system.
If
everything here is in ksh I've got to keep it that way.
And frankly, if I was to do serious things I'd use Java or may be,
less
likely C++, not those %$^*%% scripts.
wow, I
lofty;220961 Wrote:
I know I'm a little late to this old thread here, but I don't see how
creating a rich-client windows-based skin for SlimServer would
conflict with any of those two points.
The key is the API. If Logitech continues to invest in building on the
core SlimServer API they
pfarrell;214203 Wrote:
This is way OT, but use bash, not ksh. I haven't used awk in 15+ years.
Learn perl, it has a dumb syntax but can do anything. Plus you can then
join the SlimServer developers list.
I have to admit that you *need* to use the shell to do serious stuff,
and the
325xi wrote:
I prefer Java to anything. Simple, effective and highly convenient. I
really don't get all this attachment to Unix lifestyle. Why not to
get back to perforated cards then, to have a complete old world
experience?
I'm not sure what you mean by Unix lifestyle and Unix is anything
325xi wrote:
Unix carries too much from legacy systems, starting with vi, which leads
to adopting legacy work style. Widely available X-apps are so horrible
that I don't always find them worth the bandwidth they take - and they
aren't always available, which gets me back to antique vi. Yes, I
325xi;221011 Wrote:
Unix carries too much from legacy systems, starting with vi, which leads
to adopting legacy work style. Widely available X-apps are so horrible
that I don't always find them worth the bandwidth they take - and they
aren't always available, which gets me back to antique
325xi;212471 Wrote:
I just moved to another position where I have to work with... Unix, so
I'm learning ksh, awk, etc... All this stuff makes me very angry...
This is way OT, but use bash, not ksh. I haven't used awk in 15+ years.
Learn perl, it has a dumb syntax but can do anything. Plus
Pat Farrell;211498 Wrote:
JJZolx wrote:
If the next generation of
streaming media product released by Logitech were powered by a slick
Windows-only application, would anyone really be that surprised?
Then I would be as angry as most of your postings.
I use Windoze only when I am
erland;211521 Wrote:
Here is something to aim at for the user interface of the system:
http://www.microsoft.com/surface/
I'm not sure this would be the most useful in all situations, but it
would sure be a cool way to demonstrate the SqueezeBox for friends.
There is some playlist making
erland;211521 Wrote:
Here is something to aim at for the user interface of the system:
http://www.microsoft.com/surface/
I'm not sure this would be the most useful in all situations, but it
would sure be a cool way to demonstrate the SqueezeBox for friends.
There is some playlist making
** EDIT **
ignore me, i can't read.
--
funkstar
funkstar's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2335
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35881
erland;211329 Wrote:
The problem here is of course that the music industry wouldn't allow
this unless the FLAC is encrypted and copy protected in some way so it
is impossible to use it on another computer.
I am afraid that you are 100% right with this statement. Before the big
music
JJZolx;211319 Wrote:
Hmmm... Unless the new Squeezebox is a complete and total mess of a
system including a CD-ROM drive, I don't see this end of things being
improved upon. The best Logitech might do is to develop a
jack-of-all-trades (and master of none?) music manager to be run on
your
CardinalFang;211359 Wrote:
An alternative would be to drop SlimServer completely and make future
Squeezeboxes work in a more integrated way with iTunes and Windows
media.
This is a joke, right? You can't be serious. Why would we ever want to
be at the mercy of what Apple or Microsoft decide
cliveb;211367 Wrote:
As for Apple: recently Steve Jobs has become a cuddly teddy-bear because
he's come out against DRM. But he didn't do it for philanthropic reasons
- it is a hard-nosed business decision. Under the good-guy exterior,
he's still a megalomaniac.
You can hardly blame him for
cliveb;211367 Wrote:
This is a joke, right? You can't be serious. Why would we ever want to
be at the mercy of what Apple or Microsoft decide to do in the future?
Because they own the mass market for music and if it's Logitech's aim
to make Slim more mass market, then they ought to consider
amey01;211333 Wrote:
I want to rewind all the time
Try the Song Scanner plugin. It's not technically REW/FF, but it
allows you to quickly access any part of the file, starting from the
current playback position. It works in fairly fine increments and
shows a bar graph of the current
CardinalFang;211376 Wrote:
In any case, many of us already use iTunes for managing our libraries
and that doesn't mean using DRM or lossy formats. The only difference
I'm suggesting is that you could consider putting some of what is in
slimserver, i.e. reading data from network drives, into
erland;211452 Wrote:
If I'm not mistaken, Apple provide their own streaming hardware in
Airport Express, I'm pretty sure they would do everything they can to
make it as hard as possible for a competitor (like Logitech) to make a
tight integration with iTunes.
It doesn't need to be that tight
JJZolx;211319 Wrote:
SlimServer was as good as gone the day Logitech bought the company.
I'm not exactly sure what this is based on. We just released 6.5.2...
post acquisition. If you care to look you will see that the developers
are hard at work on the next big release
JJZolx wrote:
SlimServer was as good as gone the day Logitech bought the company.
This is clearly your personal opinion, one that I do not share.
But what I can't understand at all is why you, JJZolx, are so prolific
in your postings when you clearly dislike the product and company. Why
not
Pat Farrell;211485 Wrote:
JJZolx wrote:
SlimServer was as good as gone the day Logitech bought the company.
This is clearly your personal opinion, one that I do not share.
But what I can't understand at all is why you, JJZolx, are so prolific
in your postings when you clearly dislike the
JJZolx;211490 Wrote:
If the next generation of streaming media product released by Logitech
were powered by a slick Windows-only application, would anyone really
be that surprised?
I can see your point, because the massmarket is clearly using Windows
and is used to closed source applications.
JJZolx;211490 Wrote:
If the next generation of streaming media product released by Logitech
were powered by a slick Windows-only application, would anyone really
be that surprised?
I, for one, would be extremely surprised.
--
seanadams
JJZolx wrote:
If the next generation of
streaming media product released by Logitech were powered by a slick
Windows-only application, would anyone really be that surprised?
Then I would be as angry as most of your postings.
I use Windoze only when I am paid to do so. 18 years ago, I was a
Pat Farrell;211498 Wrote:
Then I would be as angry as most of your postings.
I use Windoze only when I am paid to do so. 18 years ago, I was a
Windows evangelist. I've changed. Windows-only applications are simply
not acceptable to me.
You may find that you have absolutely no interest
JJZolx;211505 Wrote:
And if those products for which you have no interest were driven by
Windows-only software, would you really care?
Sheesh, Jim, can I get a break here? So far we have had the following
predictions and more:
- No more Linux support
- No more Mac support
- No more
Pat Farrell;211498 Wrote:
JJZolx wrote:
If the next generation of
streaming media product released by Logitech were powered by a slick
Windows-only application, would anyone really be that surprised?
Then I would be as angry as most of your postings.
I use Windoze only when I am
jonheal wrote:
I like Windows. They lets in the light!
Yes, and Pella and Anderson make very good windows.
But I haven't seen any audiophile products from either of those companies.
This is the Audiophile forum, not the corporate whining forum.
Its the music that matters.
--
Pat
Pat Farrell;211511 Wrote:
This is the Audiophile forum, not the corporate whining forum.
Its the music that matters.
In this forum? I thought it was the equipment that mattered!
:)
Steve.
--
SteveEast
No, its the -price- of the equipment that matters. Its all about
conspicuous consumption ;-)
--
Nostromo
Nostromo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6322
View this thread:
Here is something to aim at for the user interface of the system:
http://www.microsoft.com/surface/
I'm not sure this would be the most useful in all situations, but it
would sure be a cool way to demonstrate the SqueezeBox for friends.
There is some playlist making shown in the middle of The
amey01;211286 Wrote:
STOP STOP STOP!!! Please.
Before we start adding even more features to the Squeezebox, let's just
get what we've got working - and working properly.
FF and REWIND that works as well (not better - just as well) as a
circa 1982 CD player would be a start!
Ain't
JJZolx;211289 Wrote:
Ain't gonna happen. The architecture just isn't cut out for it.
Why? Because the Squeezebox is streaming the songs?
--
Nostromo
Nostromo's Profile:
Nostromo;211293 Wrote:
Why? Because the Squeezebox is streaming the songs?
Yeah. And the roundabout way that a basic command gets to the
Squeezebox - from the IR sensor, through the Squeezebox, sent over the
network to the SlimServer, then sent back over the network to the
Squeezebox. The
amey01;211286 Wrote:
FF and REWIND that works as well (not better - just as well) as a
circa 1982 CD player would be a start!
Rewind? Please be kind, rewind?
I'd love to see your mythical 1982 CD player. From the Sony site:
On August 31, 1982, an announcement was made in Tokyo that four
pfarrell;211307 Wrote:
Aside from the history, why would you want a rewind function?
The only button on my SqueezeBox remote that I use is Play
LOL - cute. Be that as it may, I can think of a thousand times when I
wanted to rewind through a track I was playing for [insert reason].
Whether
elmstreet;207589 Wrote:
I had a little update this morning.
In fact the yet to be announced product would fill a gap between SB3
and Transporter. It seems it would be around $1000.
If this is true, it could be the SB+ with XLR we are all waiting for.
We are? That's news to me.
--
JJZolx
EnochLight wrote:
LOL - cute. Be that as it may, I can think of a thousand times when I
wanted to rewind through a track I was playing for [insert reason].
Whether it was to listen again to the nuance of a particular part of a
track or to show a friend a particular segment of a song without
cliveb;207593 Wrote:
It strikes me that the existing hardware is already fine for the mass
market. The barrier to the Squeezebox becoming a mainstream product is
the backend - the slightly geeky nature of Slimserver
SlimServer was as good as gone the day Logitech bought the company.
and the
JJZolx;211319 Wrote:
A more plausible scenario is that they'd jump on the bandwagon with
everyone else on the planet and open a digital music store. They might
even distinguish themselves for a short while if they offered lossless
Flac downloads of music that aren't available elsewhere.
erland;211329 Wrote:
The problem here is of course that the music industry wouldn't allow
this unless the FLAC is encrypted and copy protected in some way so it
is impossible to use it on another computer.
Sure they would. Apple has done the hard work by convincing the music
industry that
arge;209244 Wrote:
HW:
1) SB3 form factor is OK (a bigger display would be nice now that I am
closer to 40s)
2) Balanced, volume controlled, output
3) Of course fanless.
Additional SW:
1) An audio driver that lets me redirect the Windows (XP - Vista)
mixer output to the SB.
This
HW:
1) SB3 form factor is OK (a bigger display would be nice now that I am
closer to 40s)
2) Balanced, volume controlled, output
3) Of course fanless.
Additional SW:
1) An audio driver that lets me redirect the Windows (XP - Vista)
mixer output to the SB.
This will finally give the fexibility
Pale Blue Ego;207961 Wrote:
Pure Harmony?
If it's anything like the 880, I'll pass.
Overall, I like the Harmony 880 Programmable Remote. It is very easy
to program and is very easy to use. My one gripe is the flat/small
buttons. The display could also be be higher resolution.
--
cant swallow the transporter jnr idea.
the sb3 size/shape/style is fine - just make it 24/96 compat with state
of art DAC and clean psu, ie performance of transporter in the sb3 size
!
shouldnt be too uch of a tall order what with miniturization etc !
Liam
--
soupdragon
SB3 + Cyrus CD6 +
soupdragon;208815 Wrote:
the sb3 size/shape/style is fine - just make it 24/96 compat with state
of art DAC and clean psu, ie performance of transporter in the sb3 size
!
shouldnt be too uch of a tall order what with miniturization etc !
I don't know about state-of-the-art DAC (the
Nah!
CD's days are over. Ipods have taken over the subways and parks, now
something has got to do the same at home. They're trying to step in
there...
--
topa
topa's Profile:
What I'd really like is a Transporter Jr. It would use the same case
as the Transporter but leave out the super DAC and have the same I/O
options as the SB3.
It would need some sort of upgrade over the SB3 in order to support
24/96 files, else it wouldn't be worthy of the name Transporter, even
no one on earth trusts the giant corporate monolith less then me, but it
occurs to me that logitech might not have bought slim to turn them into
the mcdonalds of music servers - they might have seen a niche product
that could stay a niche product while turning a small (for them) profit
and
No matter what new products are released, not everyone is going to be
happy :)
A photo frame device would be great in my bedroom, where i have no TV.
I wouldn't want video output electronics in a regular SB.
Extening my idea further, if a photo device had a ouch screen, it would
be great if it
funkstar;207981 Wrote:
There are loads of digital photo frames out there that play MP3s and
videos, but I've yet to see any network-able ones. So you still need to
copy your photos a memory card before using them.
An SD version would let you have your photos on your SlimServer along
Hey they could well exist, i just haven't seen any :)
--
funkstar
funkstar's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2335
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35881
funkstar;208217 Wrote:
Hey they could well exist, i just haven't seen any :)
There are manyhere is an example:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16882693008
--
jt25741
SB3-AR Masters Coax - PS Audio DLIII - Cardas Golden Reference XLR -
Sim Audio P5 - Cardas Golden
mswlogo;207968 Wrote:
I'm thinking of looking at Sonos myself because my wife won't touch the
SB3.
If I was you I'd stick with the SB3 and exchange the wife.
MC
--
ModelCitizen
It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist
in delusion, however satisfying and
opaqueice;207925 Wrote:
I'm betting the SB4 will resemble something I suggested a while back.
The wireless card/DAC function of the SB would fit in a pretty small
enclosure if it weren't for the display - so why not detach the display
entirely and add it to the remote? Make it color,
I still think a complementary product rather than a replacement is
likely.
With Jive out in the wild i think there is a lot that could be done
with integrating a full colour LCD screen into a SB type device. In
fact while they are at it, why not include the ability to stream photos
and perhaps
erland;207976 Wrote:
Of course if the display on the remote was large enough so the contents
on it could be seen from a few meters away I would still be happy. I
could then keep the remote in the docking station at the SB, I would
keep controlling the SB with the Harmony 688 with its hard
funkstar;207981 Wrote:
In fact while they are at it, why not include the ability to stream
photos and perhaps videos to the screen? There are loads of digital
photo frames out there that play MP3s and videos, but I've yet to see
any network-able ones. So you still need to copy your photos
A dockable color touchscreen display/remote is a great idea that could
still be operated by IR when docked and send IR when undocked.
--
mswlogo
mswlogo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9090
View
A dockable color touchscreen display/remote is a great idea that could
still be operated by IR when docked and send IR when undocked.
--
mswlogo
Thinkpad XP SS Cat5 SB3 RCA Meridian 861V4 (Trifield, Room
corrected, Upsampled) DSP5500 Mains, DSP5500HC Center, DSP33 Rears
ModelCitizen;207973 Wrote:
If I was you I'd stick with the SB3 and exchange the wife.
MC
I won't stoop as low and reply in kind.
--
mswlogo
Thinkpad XP SS Cat5 SB3 RCA Meridian 861V4 (Trifield, Room
corrected, Upsampled) DSP5500 Mains, DSP5500HC Center, DSP33 Rears
peterw;208002 Wrote:
It's worth noting that many people over the years have advanced the
position that VFD displays such as those used in the Squeezebox and
Transporter are much more readable than LCD displays in typical
across-the-room scenarios. My Squeezeboxes serve as audio and
Actually, if you use iTunes, the Slimserver is pretty easy to use. Just
tell it to use iTunes playlists. I'm not saying that this is the best
way to manage your music, just that a LOT of people are comfortable
with iTunes.
I think the bigger problem is that you need at least a decent music
It might be interesting to have a SB4 that had the same nice VFD
display, but included a video output to connect to a monitor.
This would allow display of photo images and also cover art and maybe
tag information.
--
Pale Blue Ego
The current SB3 is pretty mature as a mass-market hardware device.
Attractive form factor, nice display, good sound quality, all the basic
connections one would normally need.
There needs to be more work on the back end to make it Joe 6-pack
friendlier, and if they could get the price to $150
I'm betting the SB4 will resemble something I suggested a while back.
The wireless card/DAC function of the SB would fit in a pretty small
enclosure if it weren't for the display - so why not detach the display
entirely and add it to the remote? Make it color, decent resolution,
capable of
opaqueice;207925 Wrote:
I'm betting the SB4 will resemble something I suggested a while back.
The wireless card/DAC function of the SB would fit in a pretty small
enclosure if it weren't for the display - so why not detach the display
entirely and add it to the remote? Make it color,
Pure Harmony?
If it's anything like the 880, I'll pass.
--
Pale Blue Ego
Pale Blue Ego's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=110
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=35881
i think Feb 2008 was the answer i was hoping for !
hopefully with a better DAC applied to it and proper 24/96 !
Liam
--
soupdragon
SB3 + Cyrus CD6 + JVC QL A75 DD TT - Cyrus PreX - Eclipse TD 502 -
Eclipse 512 speakers
I had a little update this morning.
In fact the yet to be announced product would fill a gap between SB3
and Transporter. It seems it would be around $1000.
If this is true, it could be the SB+ with XLR we are all waiting for.
--
elmstreet
elmstreet;207589 Wrote:
I had a little update this morning.
In fact the yet to be announced product would fill a gap between SB3
and Transporter. It seems it would be around $1000.
If this is true, it could be the SB+ with XLR we are all waiting for.
What we (audiophiles) are waiting for
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
