I have a Duet, and I have an iPod Touch with iPeng.
I'll have to admit that I would really like a better controller than
either, one more like the Sonos.
big LCD
instant-on
responsive to touch and gestures
can tweak most or all of Squeezecenter's settings
etc.
Perhaps one is coming?
--
jimza
Three or four years ago I did the same investigation: which system to
buy Slimdevices (at that time their name wasnt Logitech) or Sonos.
After some digging I finally choose for SB and mainly for these
reasons:
1. Sonos uses a closed proprietary network. On top of that, it uses
802.11 b/
badbob;450764 Wrote:
> I just tried the new Sonos remote, pretty damn awesome. Amazing it picks
> up what you're pressing on the those tiny letters on the right hand
> side. Certainly faster than my NAS as slimserver. Is there anything like
> that for squeezebox, a larger screen and fast response
badbob;450764 Wrote:
> I just tried the new Sonos remote, pretty damn awesome. Amazing it picks
> up what you're pressing on the those tiny letters on the right hand
> side. Certainly faster than my NAS as slimserver. Is there anything like
> that for squeezebox, a larger screen and fast response
I just tried the new Sonos remote, pretty damn awesome. Amazing it picks
up what you're pressing on the those tiny letters on the right hand
side. Certainly faster than my NAS as slimserver. Is there anything like
that for squeezebox, a larger screen and fast response? Maybe database
stored locall
badbob;450666 Wrote:
> I know any computer will do but to snobbie Hi-Fi shop, or a snobbie
> customer it doesn't seem so high-end with non matching or supported
> components.
But how is this really different in principle to the Sonos system
requiring third-party disk storage to be able to operate
Apparently you should have got what I was covering, which is they are
not supported by Logitech. Logitech do not have their own
computer/squeezebox unit (either with amp or no amp) Some people are
finnicky they'll want the same brand for the system controller. I know
any computer will do but to sn
badbob;450397 Wrote:
> A integrated solution.
Apparently several people need to do some additional Internet surfing.
If one just has to have a built-in amp, there is one available. I prefer
powered speakers or proper amp matching myself.
There is a Squeezebox with built in amp: 'Connected Acous
Well of course you do, but what Sonos has with no host computer is a
positive point, a installer doesn't like the idea of a computer..faffing
about with OS etc. I do have a couple of Squeezebox's, I do like the
adjustability, but looking at Sonos it does have that going for it. Plug
in and go. I t
toby10;450401 Wrote:
> I've never used Sonos beyond the store demo, so maybe I'm not
> understanding how Sonos works.
>
> But I was under the impression, and I think this is what you are
> saying, is that Sonos is also server based, just that it's a self
> contained server (cpu, drive, server so
badbob;450371 Wrote:
> The only drawback of squeezebox is it requires a host service, you can't
> just plug the SB into your router, have a standard NAS and play music
> straight from it. A self contained squeezebox with built-in
> (upgradeable) software and CPU power for it, would have been nice
upstatemike;450389 Wrote:
> That is the SONOS model and I have never understood why it would make
> any difference. Either way you have two pieces, the music player and the
> music repository. I can't see that it makes a difference which location
> holds the "brains" of the system. I use a small
upstatemike;450383 Wrote:
>
> > pski Wrote:
> > I don't have an issue with 4 seconds from "saving my battery for you."> > I
> > probably wouldn't have a problem with 4 seconds either.
> Unfortunately the delay is much longer than that.
I agree. The delay is much longer than 4 seconds, which i
badbob;450371 Wrote:
> The only drawback of squeezebox is it requires a host service, you can't
> just plug the SB into your router, have a standard NAS and play music
> straight from it. A self contained squeezebox with built-in
> (upgradeable) software and CPU power for it, would have been nice
pski;450299 Wrote:
>
>
> WRONG: SR (squeezebox receiver) does NOT have a display other than a
> color LED.
But you are not required to use an SR. You can have an SB3 in every
room. SONOS does not have a player with a display.
>
> WRONG: SB (squeezebox) include IR. Transporter includes IR co
The only drawback of squeezebox is it requires a host service, you can't
just plug the SB into your router, have a standard NAS and play music
straight from it. A self contained squeezebox with built-in
(upgradeable) software and CPU power for it, would have been nice.
--
badbob
---
The main thing for me is as stated by the first poster: size of music
collection.
My digital music collection is just slightly under 50,000 files right
now and growing.
My understanding is that Sonos only goes up to 45,000 music files.
Naturally I see this as a critical problem.
--
jimzak
h
pski;450299 Wrote:
>
> WRONG: WTF is a "local source?" You put your music where the server can
> find it. Might as well complain that Boom can't play a CD.
>
On a Sonos you can plug any audio source you like into the back of one
of them and stream the source to all the players. Doing the same
upstatemike;450276 Wrote:
> Not sure you got the list you requested...
>
> Slim Devices Pros:
> -Players have displays so every location can display what is playing.
> When off you get weather forcasts, stocks, etc. Can also display custom
> messages via Home Automation servers etc.
>
> -Player
Not sure you got the list you requested...
Slim Devices Pros:
-Players have displays so every location can display what is playing.
When off you get weather forcasts, stocks, etc. Can also display custom
messages via Home Automation servers etc.
-Players can operate from included IR remotes as w
And just to add to what others have said. If you think your friends WiFi
setup is weak, fix his network coverage first or have him buy SB3 and
Boom only. The Duet has the most trouble dealing with a weak WiFi
network due partly to its size and the only places that antennas could
be placed.
I have
I'm not so sure I agree.
My brother, who can use a computer but isn't what I would call
technical or technically inclined, had no trouble installing SC on his
Windows XP machine. He also had no trouble configuring his Duet when he
received it. The only involvement I've had to was to give him so
I have long considered the Sonos having long suffered through many
problems with the SB. In the end I always choose to stick with the SB.
If your friend is computer person and likes technical challenges tell
him/her to go with the SB. But if he isn't technical, or is easily
frustrated then Sonos h
Just as surround sound can be HTIB (Home Theatre In A Box) where one
needs nothing other than what comes in the box, Sonos is a kind of
Server/WiFi in a box for streaming music.
No need for (or much knowledge related too) networks, routers, WiFi,
servers, etc...
On the other hand, if one has a b
I would add, setting a dedicated wifi network for the music.
Different AP/router for the squeezeboxes vs the you/wife/kids laptops
I have only one wifi network but then my PC is wired so it's only
squeezeboxes and controllers in the air here.
One can certainly get into trouble if one does not t
AbMagFab;450141 Wrote:
> I am a SqueezeBox fan, and I prefer the open architecture of it.
>
> I also require the IR blaster capabilities to turn on/off my AV
> equipment when only using the SB.
>
> A friend of mine is asking which he should get. Certainly money is an
> obvious con for Sonos, b
I am a SqueezeBox fan, and I prefer the open architecture of it.
I also require the IR blaster capabilities to turn on/off my AV
equipment when only using the SB.
A friend of mine is asking which he should get. Certainly money is an
obvious con for Sonos, but are there any other pros/cons for t
27 matches
Mail list logo
