TransNav knob has room when rotating?

[JJZolx]

I don't understand why you post so often when you are clearly so unhappy.

What it is this time, Pat?

I don't understand why you post so often, apparently for the sole purpose of being able to view your opinions in a public forum.

[pfarrell]

JJZolx wrote:
> I don't understand why you post so often, apparently for the sole
> purpose of being able to view your opinions in a public forum.

Or to correct your mistakes.


--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

[kdf]

That's probably right. But audiophiles didn't design the Transporter. That same cynic would say it was the designers of the Transporter that felt a need to put the doodads on an expensive unit targeted at that market.

It seems obvious from the resulting design that feedback was heard from threads such as these:

http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=16376
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=14750
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=1592

The graphics in the first thread are no longer online, but they did have buttons much the same as those seen today.

A true cynic would suggest that your negativity now is more a case of not getting exactly what you wanted, as opposed to bad or ill-considered design.

just MY opinion, based on a few researched facts.

-kdf

[JJZolx]

It seems obvious from the resulting design that feedback was heard from threads such as these:

I remember those threads quite well. They were a lot of fun, and I was thrilled to see the design of the Transporter take them to heart.

A true cynic would suggest that your negativity now is more a case of not getting exactly what you wanted, as opposed to bad or ill-considered design.

I don't feel I'm being negative, just stating what others have apparently also observed. The Transporter front panel design wasn't perfect, but few things are. The wheel isn't as useful as it might have been, IMO due to the layout of the buttons and the feel of the force feedback knob. But the Boom hit it nearly on the nose and that knowledge could be used to produce a better Transporter II, or incorporated into future products.

[pfarrell]

JJZolx wrote:
> I don't feel I'm being negative, just stating what others have
> apparently also observed.

You are being silly, argumentative and negative.
Give it a break

[kdf]

On 19-Oct-08, at 4:01 PM, JJZolx wrote:

>
> kdf;351342 Wrote:
>> It seems obvious from the resulting design that feedback was heard
>> from
>> threads such as these:
>
> I remember those threads quite well. They were a lot of fun, and I
> was
> thrilled to see the design of the Transporter take them to heart.
>
good. Without fun, there is no third party community.

>> A true cynic would suggest that your negativity now is more a case of
>> not getting exactly what you wanted, as opposed to bad or
>> ill-considered design.
>
> I don't feel I'm being negative, just stating what others have
> apparently also observed.

Fair enough. How that message come across, my not be entirely as you
intended, perhaps.

> But the Boom hit it nearly on the nose and that
> knowledge could be used to produce a better Transporter II, or
> incorporated into future products.

I'd expect no less. The Transporter is a major technological leap
from where Squeeze- products were before. Given the branding it has,
I would expect we may not the its like again any time soon, but
certainly lessons have been learned and the benefits already show.

-kdf

[ModelCitizen]

Different market. Its an audiophile product. A lot of those guys don't accept that remotes are good.

I didn't know that. My Naim pre-amp had a remote and I though they were generally considered a good thing now.

Audiophiles are a strange bunch. One of the great things about network players is that you don't have to keep going to the device to change the media (cds). You'd think it it would not take long to cotton on that a remote would be pretty useful in this scenario.

I think the buttons and knobs cause the most damage to general reputation of the Transporter and I can't believe that many people at all use them on a regular basis.

I'm sure that their inclusion was an error (much like the omission of a usable headphone socket for the Boom).

MC

[kdf]

> I'm sure that their inclusion was an error (much like the omission of a
> usable headphone socket for the Boom).
>
I suggest you spend some time looking up the old threads discussing the
wish list for future products around the time that the Transporter was
in development (go back as much as one year from it's release date).
You'll see that this was very much NOT an "error", as much as simply
"not a device made specifically for you".

btw...the headphone jack placement is also getting to be an old gripe.
Let other people take it up if needed,but you have said your peace and
gotten your reponses.

-kdf

[Rodney_Gold]

The transporter is totally overengineered. The front panel is useless for most , the double display is not of any great use.
The price break tween a TP and a SB is rediculous. The TP coulda had the better dac and all the features of the TP for far far less. To pay huge amounts extra for aesthetics , knobs , thick front panel and silly handles is rediculous. I'm an audiophile , and like most of em , the prime concern is the sound of a unit, and thr TP is lacking imho in terms of its sonic sig with its DAC. It sounds cold , clinical and lifeless.
In the interim , im on my 3rd TP , the first ones knob was broken and the 2nd ones display died on me.......so much for adding extra parts.

[norman12]

None of this diatribe is helping those of us who may have hard or soft bugs with their 'Knobs'
The Transporter is what it is, the aesthetics and ergonomics are a subjective issue. I like knobs and buttons (within reason) and I'm very happy that the Transporter has some!