mlsstl wrote:
> I like internet radio and it doesn't bother me too much one way or
> another as to what they play and when, but trusting faceless
> corporations with my own collection and hoping they play nice is a
> different matter.
and couldn't agree more, as this is why I want my own copies
Sorry. Agree. The silly part refers only to speculation (what if) on
what sort of players Logitech may or may not have in the future.
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View this thread:
garym wrote:
> ...it is actually silly to concern ourselves over these "what ifs" with
> regard to Squeezebox (or other technology for that matter).
Guess we're each entitled to our own perspective, but the copyright
issue isn't a "what if" situation.
Just Google "Righthaven", or check out th
aspendl828 wrote:
> I pretty much agree with all the points in favour of a self managed
> local collection of owned files.
>
> My concern is that Logitech might sense the move to renting / streaming
> from third parties and any future product line may focus more on that
> source of music with th
I pretty much agree with all the points in favour of a self managed
local collection of owned files.
My concern is that Logitech might sense the move to renting / streaming
from third parties and any future product line may focus more on that
source of music with the likely compromise of a lossy
There are definitely potential issues in storing one's music on "the
cloud" or depending on it as your music source. There are plenty of
examples of problems in related areas. One of the most famous is the
2009 episode when Amazon went into the Kindle Readers of customers who
had already bought Or
garym wrote:
>
> The ironic thing is that this thread has posts concerned with whether SB
> products will be available in the future. I would be *more* worried as
> to whether my "rented" cloud music would be available in the future in
> the format, manner, etc. that I want. This said, I have n
Gingernut63 wrote:
> Cheers, I'll check it out. I'm interested to see what all the hype is
> about.
I find it very useful for checking out new music (new to me...could be
jazz albums from the 1950s).
garym's Profile: http
garym wrote:
> both excellent points. p.s. I think MOG has started up in Australia and
> it works well with squeezeboxes (add in myapps at mysb.com). And the
> cheap paid version (4.99 in the US) is enough to make it work on your
> SBs. I moved from Spotify to MOG. Seems to be same selection, b
Gingernut63 wrote:
> One other issue that seems to be missed is that not all peoples have
> access to the streaming services that you guys are talking about. I
> don't think we have music streaming services at the moment in Australia
> and if we do it maybe in the embryonic stage.
>
> The other
garym wrote:
> definitelyas a teenager I saw concerts by Jimi Hendrix and Janis
> Joplin, and they were dead by 1970. Regarding owning. Hard to say why.
> I don't feel the need to own many DVDs and prefer netflix (renting). I
> do like owning my home, my cars, etc. Maybe I'm just used to o
Mnyb wrote:
> ontroll .
>
> I have to worry more than Gary as I think my porridge drooling days are
> one or two decades further in th future ;-)
> ( just a guess as Gary seem to have been on concerts venues when I was
> on my first set of teeths ).
definitelyas a teenager I saw concerts b
Hi,
In article ,
Atlantic wrote:
> Of course, everything could be transcoded to different formats - though
> retaining the tags is a bit trickier and would be an issue on a large
> collection - but of more concern is that transcoding lossy formats would
> result in further degradation.
aspendl828 wrote:
> I agree with you both. I also want to own the music. The problem is I
> struggle to justify that position other than on sound quality grounds.
> If I could load all my FLAC files into the cloud and stream them in all
> their pristine quality to whatever player I wanted whereve
I agree with you both. I also want to own the music. The problem is I
struggle to justify that position other than on sound quality grounds.
If I could load all my FLAC files into the cloud and stream them in all
their pristine quality to whatever player I wanted wherever and whenever
I wanted the
Mnyb wrote:
> No " renting " content for me thanks . I prefer drm and watermark free
> lossles files I can do whatever I want with , will spotify exist in 20
> years ? Can I " rent " the content I want to in a disneyfied world ?
> Content will not be in the hand of the users in the future.
>
> h
aspendl828 wrote:
> Just a thought, guys, but...
>
> IF you had the bandwidth into your home and IF Spotify (for example)
> streamed 24/96 FLAC would you ever buy another CD (rare old stuff
> excepted, of course)?
>
> Seems to me the subscription / on demand model is the future. The only
> way
Gingernut63 wrote:
> Forums are about discussions, it's good to communicate with other music
> dinosaurs. Let's hope the asteroid doesn't hit soon!
>
> I'll trade you my 1998 HP 4X CD burner only $450 (AUS) brand new. I'll
> also throw in a blank CD. ;)
Hey, what about my 8-Track RECORDER from
Just a thought, guys, but...
IF you had the bandwidth into your home and IF Spotify (for example)
streamed 24/96 FLAC would you ever buy another CD (rare old stuff
excepted, of course)?
Seems to me the subscription / on demand model is the future. The only
way us 'dinosaurs' can have an issue wi
mlsstl wrote:
> Anyone want to buy a Hayes 1200 baud modem? I paid only $700 for it
> new!
> ;-)
Forums are about discussions, it's good to communicate with other music
dinosaurs. Let's hope the asteroid doesn't hit soon!
I'll trade you my 1998 HP 4X CD burner only $450 (AUS) brand new. I'll
al
Thanks for the info. I'm not interested in debating, but just trying to
add some perspective. Anytime anyone buys technology there is a risk of
ending up on the out. A lot of people were sure the Betamax video format
was going to win against VHS, but it didn't. Both electric and steam
powered cars
mlsstl wrote:
> Not sure where you're coming from with the "invested a lot of money in
> this system" comment. Perhaps those who purchased a Transporter have
> more of a claim along these lines, but my Touch is the least expensive
> component in my stereo by a good margin.
I'm not talking about
Gingernut63 wrote:
> Alas some people have invested a lot of money in this system over the
> years.
Not sure where you're coming from with the "invested a lot of money in
this system" comment. Perhaps those who purchased a Transporter have
more of a claim along these lines, but my Touch is the le
mlsstl wrote:
> However, the neat thing is that, if I've bothered to back up my music
> collection, it exists completely independent of the player I use. I
> believe one can have a high level of confidence that there will always
> be a way to play my music. [...] I won't be left hanging with a bi
mlsstl wrote:
> I'd be sad if my Squeezeboxes broke and they weren't making them
> anymore, but that has happened at some point to the vast majority of
> products ever made
> I hope Logitech sticks with the Squeezebox line and continues to improve
> it, but there are certainly far worse thing
sander wrote:
> I hope we can make a soft landing and Logitech doesn't move a direction
> which would alienate those of us who run older versions of their
> software and hardware, but who can say.
I'd be sad if my Squeezeboxes broke and they weren't making them
anymore, but that has happened at s
I prefer to think of it as mission accomplished. Investing in
Squeezeboxes was one of the best decisions I've made, and I hope to run
them in their current form (with a couple of small tweaks) for the rest
of my life.
When I think of potential improvements on the Squeeze tech, I really
can't thin
Well said, Gordon. I guess my hopes for the standalone server were never
very high, so the dodgy implementation in the current Touch wasn't as
disappointing for me. But I am disappointed that we may indeed have
reached a dead-end.
-
aubuti wrote:
> You keep talking about "we need." Who is this "we"?
Well, me, for one. I had very high hopes for the SBTouch as a product
that could eliminate the need for a stand-alone server. The reality is
that it doesn't even come close to being able to support my library of
>60k tracks on
DejanM wrote:
> So we need also more CPU inside and better receiver.
You keep talking about "we need." Who is this "we"?
aubuti's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2074
View this thread: http://forum
The EDO plug in provides 24/192 from all outputs. There is much advice
re the connection of a USB hard drive but you could use a Nas such as
Vortebox etc.
Corelli
Corelli45's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.ph
Well I didn't want to start discussion about whether Hi Res is better
than Red Book or not. I was only hoping that somebody may perhaps know
something about Logitech plans ...
I believe that SB Touch (as a latest Logitech product) is quite Ok
except in two areas: it doesn't support 24/192 (it ca
I'll check that put MrC. Thanks.
Corelli45's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=55246
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=95885
___
Corelli45 wrote:
> Can I down sample these tracks on JRiver? I have JRiver 17 but have not
> used it for while.
I haven't read this thread, so I'm not sure I can answer directly. But
the JRiver folks will likely answer promptly on their forum:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact
Gingernut63 wrote:
> Geez, that must make me a dinosaur too, and we all know what happened to
> them they turned into birds! Sorry I'm getting too metaphysical.
>
Anyone with more than 50 posts on this forum probably falls into the
"dinosaur" category when it comes to interest in both ownin
garym wrote:
> (...I'm a dinosaur with my server with thousands of digitized albums,
> even among my same aged friends).
Geez, that must make me a dinosaur too, and we all know what happened to
them they turned into birds! Sorry I'm getting too metaphysical.
aubuti wrote:
> I doubt anyone
Can I down sample these tracks on JRiver? I have JRiver 17 but have not
used it for while.
Corelli
Corelli45's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=55246
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/s
Gingernut63 wrote:
> By the way, what is their business plan for Squeezebox? ;)
I doubt anyone knows that, but you may find this speculation thread of
interest:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?95893-New-kit-next-year
-
Gingernut63 wrote:
>
> On top of all this Logitech really needs to then get behind the product
> and sell, sell, sell.
>
yes, marketing seems not to know what to do. Folks come to my house and
are amazed with how my music system works so automatically and how I can
pass around the ipad on the
Mnyb wrote:
> No we don't 24/96 is already overkill for human listeners ? We need
> better recordings , the delivery format has very litle influence
> compared to the sound of the master/recording . ( actually the sq of the
> majority of existing recordings is such that not even 16/44.1 is a
> te
I think most people use 'SoX' (http://sox.sourceforge.net) or
'foobar2000' (www.foobar2000.org).
aubuti's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2074
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthr
Corelli45 wrote:
> Thanks for that. What's the best way to downsample?
I know you can do this easily in dbpoweramp. Maybe in foobar2000 as
well.
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View
Thanks for that. What's the best way to downsample?
Corelli45's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=55246
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=95885
Agreed, and in this instance it's really pretty easy to do a
double-blind test, or do away with the partner entirely and have a valid
single-blind test.
1) use the same original source (24/192), and downsample to get the
24/96 and 16/44.1. That way you know that any difference isn't down to
diff
Yes, that's very true so I intend to down sample and compare again.
Thanks
Corelli45's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=55246
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=95885
Corelli45 wrote:
> Sorry...I did misunderstand your first question.
>
> During the initial listening, though I knew the resolutions my listening
> partner did not.
That's enough to cause bias; your listening partner could have picked up
on your reactions (whether voluntary or involuntary). A
Sorry...I did misunderstand your first question.
During the initial listening, though I knew the resolutions my listening
partner did not. He did identify differences between the 16/44 and the
24/192. He discerned a deeper and wider soundstage and more separation
between the instruments. This co
Perhaps my first question was misunderstood, so let me rephrase. At the
time you were doing the comparisons, did you know which of the
resolutions you were listening to, or did you "anonymize" them as A, B,
and C, and come to your conclusions on the basis of sound quality alone,
without knowledge
The resolutions are clearly marked on each version...I can only assume
that Channel Classics are being honest with the presentation though I
can think of no way to prove this. The music is Botessini Capiccio di
Bravura in A Major by Rick Stotijn. Listen ans see what you think.It's a
free download.
Two simple questions: When you were listening, did you know which
resolution you were listening to? And are you 100% certain all three are
from the same masterings?
aubuti's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php
Channel classics have a download comparison sampler with three versions
of the same track, one at 16/44, one at 24/96 and one at 24/192.We
definitely heard more space between the instruments in the 24/192
version. Have a listen.Iforget the music, but it was cello driven.
Mnyb wrote:
> On topic yes I agree we need some more sb products but not because of
> this reason.
+1 :)
michel's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4393
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.c
On topic yes I agree we need some more sb products but not because of
this reason.
Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=95885
DejanM wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think it is a time to put a new SB unit on the market. SB Touch is ok
> but we (customers, market in general) need something that can play
> 24/192 or even 32/384. Is there something cooking in the kitchen ?
No we don't 24/96 is already overkill for human listeners ? W
Oh, and Logitech has a policy of not commenting about what is, or is
not, cooking in the kitchen. They wait until the meal is ready to be
served. At least as long as some bonehead distributor doesn't leak the
information first, as happened with the Touch several months before its
release.
--
DejanM wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think it is a time to put a new SB unit on the market. SB Touch is ok
> but we (customers, market in general) need something that can play
> 24/192 or even 32/384. Is there something cooking in the kitchen ?
install the free Triode's EDO plugin and you can play 24/192
Hi,
I think it is a time to put a new SB unit on the market. SB Touch is ok
but we (customers, market in general) need something that can play
24/192 or even 32/384. Is there something cooking in the kitchen ?
DejanM's Pro
gruntwolla;640804 Wrote:
> Which direction did you go? I'd love to know of decent table stereo that
> has better functionality than a squeezebox. Can it access
> spotify/napster/pandora etc. Can it sync with other music systems?
>
> I think many of us agree that a Boom2 with previously mentioned
aubuti;640733 Wrote:
> I don't know where you are located, but the original Boom is still
> available a lot of places. With triode's Spotify plugin it ticks 3 of
> the 4 boxes, lacking only the touchscreen. Is the touchscreen really
> that essential? That seems more "laughable" to me.
I know you
eganders;640712 Wrote:
> The idea that either a monophonic Radio, or the conglomeration of a
> Touch plus separate amplified speakers, is a substitute for a decent
> table stereo player, is laughable on many levels, including cost,
> functionality, ease of use, etc.
>
> I've had recent opportuni
I'm still waiting for the arrival of the Atomic Squeezebox... ;)
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=28816
--
TCM
'Last.fm: ThisCharmingMan' (http://www.last.fm/user/ThisCharmingMan)
TCM's Profile: http://foru
eganders;640712 Wrote:
> I've had recent opportunities where a "Boom 2", or the like, would have
> been a perfect choice. Unfortunately no such device exists today, so
> we've had to go a different direction.
>
> Sad.
I don't know where you are located, but the original Boom is still
available
indeed. there are products i **could** make work... but a mythical boom
2 would be ideal, and I shall wait and hope one comes out.
I don't think it would be very difficult... we're told the audio stages
of the radio are based on the boom; the embedded platform that the logic
of the touch and the
The idea that either a monophonic Radio, or the conglomeration of a
Touch plus separate amplified speakers, is a substitute for a decent
table stereo player, is laughable on many levels, including cost,
functionality, ease of use, etc.
I've had recent opportunities where a "Boom 2", or the like,
Slip, they really do multiply like rabbits. I found that out and to me
they are worth it.
--
Ikabob
Ikabob
Squeezebox Touch w/SBS; SAE Amplifier;Marantz Pre-amp;ESS Heil
Speakers(main listening speakers plus various additional speakers).
Multiple players: SqueezeBooms,SqueezeRadios; SB3;
Se
slippyr4;640038 Wrote:
> well, i'm new to the squeezebox scene (i got a radio last wednesday and
> liked it so much I bought a touch on sunday).
>
> The touch is for my hifi in the living room; the radio is great in the
> kitchen. But now i want a device for the dining room:-
>
> Stereo
> Integ
slippyr4;640038 Wrote:
> well, i'm new to the squeezebox scene (i got a radio last wednesday and
> liked it so much I bought a touch on sunday).
>
> The touch is for my hifi in the living room; the radio is great in the
> kitchen. But now i want a device for the dining room:-
>
> Stereo
> Integ
well, i'm new to the squeezebox scene (i got a radio last wednesday and
liked it so much I bought a touch on sunday).
The touch is for my hifi in the living room; the radio is great in the
kitchen. But now i want a device for the dining room:-
Stereo
Integrated Speakers
Touchscreen
Support for S
This is the kind of player I'm looking for:
http://gizmodo.com/181262/grundig-psw-500-wireless-speaker
(looks weather proof enough, mobile to place whereever you are in the
garden or garage, operates on battery or mains, big speaker to produce
good sound (strong not high quality))
I hope I can fi
Hey Trev, glad to hear it. I think a Radio is a great choice for a 9
year-old. Now with some judicious selections for the six presets you
have a fighting chance that you can steer him towards good musical
taste. No guarantee, but a chance.
--
aubuti
-
aubuti;636746 Wrote:
> In your earlier post you were talking about the need for Receivers, and
> now you're talking about a successor to the Boom, so I hope you can
> where I was unclear about what you meant. But now I think I get your
> point and I agree completely that it would be good to have
justreturned;637723 Wrote:
> ...
> Logitech, please bring back an SB3-like model, with nice design, maybe
> a (tiny) set of somewhat hidden and invisible buttons (e.g. on the side
> or on top)...
I would agree. I just got a SB Touch and like it, but also thing it has
strayed away from the "slim"
justreturned;637723 Wrote:
> In my opinion SB3 is still the most awesome-looking piece of hardware
> every made in this product line (designed by Slimdevices). I own Booms,
> a Radio, a Receiver and a SB3, and while the SB3's fluorescent display
> is not as flexible as a touchscreen, it just look
justreturned;637723 Wrote:
> In my opinion SB3 is still the most awesome-looking piece of hardware
> every made in this product line (designed by Slimdevices). I own Booms,
> a Radio, a Receiver and a SB3, and while the SB3's fluorescent display
> is not as flexible as a touchscreen, it just look
In my opinion SB3 is still the most awesome-looking piece of hardware
every made in this product line (designed by Slimdevices). I own Booms,
a Radio, a Receiver and a SB3, and while the SB3's fluorescent display
is not as flexible as a touchscreen, it just looks classy and is nicely
readable even
On 6/21/11 1:55 PM, erland wrote:
> Just get a Logitech Harmony remote and get a "Play Music" button that
> does everything of the above with a single click. I haven't tried it
> myself but it should work as long as all devices are controlled with a
> IR remote.
I have a Harmony. It is set up fo
Just by some used SB devices. Or keep a lookout for Logitech deals or
other deals online. They do turn up occasionally.
--
firedog
GIK Acoustics Room Treatments. Tranquil PC fanless server running
Vortexbox OS; SB Touch slaved to Empirical Audio Pace Car; MF X-DACV3,
MF X-150 amp, Devore Gibbo
4. Not everyone has a smart phone. Those that do may need it for
something else (phone call?) leaving the other person with no readily
available control point for the player.
Smartphones are great devices, versatile & handy. But not always great
at simultaneous multi-tasking especially among t
And.
3. With an interface display + touch screen , the initial setup or
changes to said setup could be caried out at the device itself :)
--
Mnyb
Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x
Meridi
Juggler;637437 Wrote:
>
> Understood the points on 802.11n and GigE being too expensive... but
> what would fit my bill exactly as a reasonably priced (not cheap),
> headless audio player that I could use in each of my rooms with
> speakers.
>
If you want high quality, just get a Touch or a use
Interesting comments. The one point I want to draw attention to is that
Logitech is not being viewed by the average joe for home audio--they
will turn to their iPod/AirPlay for that.
Understood the points on 802.11n and GigE being too expensive... but
what would fit my bill exactly as a reasonab
fuzzyT;637421 Wrote:
> I have an AppleTV v2. It does indeed require an outboard DAC before it
>
> can render analog audio. An outboard DAC with an optical input no
> less.
>
> If I wanted to use the AppleTV as an audio output device, I would need
>
> to either:
>
> Using TV interface -
>
>
naokaji;636786 Wrote:
> Maybe they could just make a leap forward and bring a unified SB / Revue
> / Nas device, stores everything, plays everything, streams everything
Logitech surely should have sneaked in SBS in their Revue or should do
so with the next Google-TV device (if Logitech is the on
aubuti;637403 Wrote:
> Let's keep the price point realistic. Except for perhaps some very
> special, very temporary promotions by particular resellers, the
> Receiver (SBR) was not priced less than US$100. The list price was
> $150, and when Logitech's supplies got low the resellers on Amazon wer
I have an AppleTV v2. It does indeed require an outboard DAC before it
can render analog audio. An outboard DAC with an optical input no less.
If I wanted to use the AppleTV as an audio output device, I would need
to either:
Using TV interface -
Turn on Stereo
Turn on DAC
Select AppleTV inpu
Juggler;637401 Wrote:
> ... thoughts? Speculations?
Let's keep the price point realistic. Except for perhaps some very
special, very temporary promotions by particular resellers, the
Receiver (SBR) was not priced less than US$100. The list price was
$150, and when Logitech's supplies got low the
I've been reading this thread with much interest. I currently have the
original SqueezePlayer and a Radio--both are fantastic pieces of
hardware and with SqueeboxServer now supporting sync, everything is
great.
That being said, I've now moved into a larger house and would like to
start whole-home
Maybe they could just make a leap forward and bring a unified SB / Revue
/ Nas device, stores everything, plays everything, streams everything
--
naokaji
naokaji's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4
gruntwolla;636745 Wrote:
> I guess I need to clarify what I meant, as I sure didn't mean to suggest
> the radio is an inferior product - just that it isn't for me.
>
> So from my point of view I hope there will be an updated version of the
> Boom in the future
In your earlier post you were talki
aubuti;636446 Wrote:
> @gruntwolla: Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree.
> Why not a Touch in every place one might otherwise have a Receiver? The
> price difference (about $150) is small compared to the overall cost when
> you include amp and speakers, and you get better qu
MrSinatra;636594 Wrote:
> my apologies if i am mistaken then, but i was under the impression that
> if you have a DLNA client, like say a PS3, you could send to it video
> or music files from say WMP, which is a DLNA server. meaning, that a
> user, via WMP directly, could control what went out o
MrSinatra;636599 Wrote:
>
> if, in theory, you had a single piece of software that was both a DLNA
> server, and a DLNA control point, it could, in theory, be remote
> controlled by an app similar to ipeng, and control what is played over
> the DLNA renderer?
>
If the renderer supports being re
ok, so tell me if i have this straight:
if, in theory, you had a single piece of software that was both a DLNA
server, and a DLNA control point, it could, in theory, be remote
controlled by an app similar to ipeng, and control what is played over
the DLNA renderer?
is that possible in at least t
MrSinatra;636594 Wrote:
> my apologies if i am mistaken then, but i was under the impression that
> if you have a DLNA client, like say a PS3, you could send to it video
> or music files from say WMP, which is a DLNA server. meaning, that a
> user, via WMP directly, could control what went out o
my apologies if i am mistaken then, but i was under the impression that
if you have a DLNA client, like say a PS3, you could send to it video
or music files from say WMP, which is a DLNA server. meaning, that a
user, via WMP directly, could control what went out over the DLNA
client.
so, are you
MrSinatra;636589 Wrote:
> this is EXACTLY what SBS is doing. i guess you think thats nonsense?
>
> sbs 7.6 will do DLNA, and 7.6 can be remote controlled by your app,
> theirs, or others. SBS is not the only server of which that paradigm
> will be true.
>
Yes, but what's the point about that
this is EXACTLY what SBS is doing. i guess you think thats nonsense?
sbs 7.6 will do DLNA, and can be remote controlled by your app, theirs,
or others. SBS is not the only server of which that paradigm will be
true.
i don't know why you're so intent with finding fault with what i said,
but i h
MrSinatra;636585 Wrote:
> i didn't say the server would be remote controlled by DLNA.
>
> i said "other servers that do DLNA can be remote controlled."
Sorry, but this is nonsense. No need for that kind of discussion.
My server can do DLNA and I can control it remotely through SSH. Cool.
What d
pippin;636584 Wrote:
> No. Not a single one.
> "Servers" are never remote controlled via DLNA. Renderers are. That's
> the problem.
> A server in DLNA is just a data source, all the logic has to be in the
> renderer.
i didn't say the server would be remote controlled by DLNA.
i said "other serv
MrSinatra;636583 Wrote:
> other servers that do DLNA can be remote controlled.
No. Not a single one.
"Servers" are never remote controlled via DLNA. Renderers are. That's
the problem.
--
pippin
---
see iPeng, the Squeezebox iPhone remote and
*New: iPeng for iPad*, at penguinlovesmusic.com
-
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
