PDA

View Full Version : Slim Devices SB2 disappointment & SB for sale.



Jason
2005-03-09, 19:06
Geez, get over it. Do you get upset when Intel or AMD releases a faster
processor at a lower price than what you paid two weeks after you got yours?

If you want an SB2 so bad then just eBay the SB1 and cough up the
difference.

And all of these "problems" being described by folks on this thread sound
suspiciously like wireless network or server side issues. I have two
squeezeboxen and don't have reboots audio dropouts or any of this other crap
people keep complaining about.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
> [mailto:discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com] On Behalf Of
> Timothy Knight Nelson
> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 5:39 PM
> To: Slim Devices Discussion
> Subject: [slim] Slim Devices SB2 disappointment & SB for sale.
>
> Mitch,
>
> For the most part, I'm with you. However, I don't think what
> I am proposing "takes advantage" of Slim Devices. With my
> proposal, they lose little or nothing by consolidating the
> resale of returned, original SB. All they need to do is
> figure out how much they could sell the perfect, returned
> units for ($199? $179? <for wireless>) and offer that as the
> trade-in value against an SB2.
>
> This would be a service to the customer to resell their unit,
> *NOT* a giveaway. In addition, having units to sell at a
> lower price point might put them into hands that would not
> otherwise pony up to buy an SB2.
>
> -Tim
>
> On Mar 9, 2005, at 4:29 PM, Mitch Harding wrote:
>
> > <steps on my soapbox>
> > I don't think they are giving anyone a raw deal by sticking
> to their
> > 30 day policy. If you chose to buy a Squeezebox, I assume it's
> > because you thought it would meet your needs. If you kept
> it past the
> > 30 day period, presumably that is because you were
> satisfied with the
> > product. If there were problems with the product that
> prevented your
> > enjoyment, you should have returned it.
> >
> > I've owned my SB for over a year now, and in my experience Slim
> > Devices have gone above and beyond the call of duty in terms of
> > customer service. But they are still a business, and they
> have to set
> > some time limit on their return policy. I feel like people almost
> > want to take advantage of Slim Devices, because they've
> been so good
> > to their customers.
> >
> > I understand your frustration -- many times I have upgraded
> computer
> > or audio components, only to have a newer version come out in the
> > subsequent months. It's not a fun feeling, but it doesn't
> mean I was
> > swindled. If I had been truly unhappy with any of my purchases, I
> > could have returned them.
> > </soapbox>
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 16:20:01 -0800, Timothy Knight Nelson
> > <tknelson (AT) slac (DOT) stanford.edu> wrote:
> >>> I've been going back and forth between an "Oh well, I
> should have
> >>> seen it coming with the wireless model out of stock most places",
> >>> and "Goddammit! I just paid $280 for a broken version of
> something
> >>> that now costs $250!"
> >>
> >> Perfectly put. I'm pretty good at dodging these changeover
> >> screw-jobs, but I blew it this time. Given all the raves I read
> >> about Slim Devices' treatment of their users/customers, I
> really had
> >> hope they
> >> would take care of us somehow. Frankly, I can't imagine
> they shipped
> >> so many units in the last 2-3 months that they would risk much by
> >> offering something like ~$100 trade-up for people who
> bought one in
> >> the last few months (perhaps covering the holidays). I
> have to think
> >> the vast majority of folks who don't need the new features
> wouldn't
> >> bother to upgrade (I wouldn't), and they could likely resell the
> >> units they took back for ~$100 less than original price and lose
> >> *nothing* but the reselling overhead. Now each of us
> needs to fire
> >> up eBay and deal with it ourselves.
> >>
> >> Thanks Slim,
> >> Tim
> >>
> >>

Timothy Knight Nelson
2005-03-09, 19:12
Are you streaming lossless audio? The data rate for lossless is such
that it is close to the usable bandwidth for 10Mbps networking (10baseT
or 802.11b).

-Tim

On Mar 9, 2005, at 6:06 PM, Jason wrote:
> And all of these "problems" being described by folks on this thread
> sound
> suspiciously like wireless network or server side issues. I have two
> squeezeboxen and don't have reboots audio dropouts or any of this
> other crap
> people keep complaining about.

Aaron Zinck
2005-03-09, 19:32
"Timothy Knight Nelson" wrote
> Are you streaming lossless audio? The data rate for lossless is such
> that it is close to the usable bandwidth for 10Mbps networking (10baseT
> or 802.11b).
>
> -Tim

In the interest of accuracy it should be noted that raw pcm at 1.4mbps is
not really all that close to the usable bandwidth for a 10baseT connection.
It may, however, be argued that it's close to the usable bandwidth on the
much more tenuous 802.11b connection--particularly when one considers the
fact that with wireless you share bandwidth with other wireless devices and
are prone to dropouts due to interference problems compounded by the sb1's
small (2mb) buffer.

Timothy Knight Nelson
2005-03-09, 19:45
Aaron,

Sorry that I was not more precise, but I was accurate.

It is true that wireless is closer to the edge. But, 5Mbps is about
all you can rely upon from 10baseT, and I have a *lot* going on in my
network so I do have dropouts even with a wired setup. Yes, when
trying with wireless, I looked for information about optimizing buffer
usage, as that seemed an obvious area of vulnerability.

It seems silly to even discuss this kind of problem in a world where
100Mbps devices have been dirt cheap for some time. Heck, my PowerMac
G4 that I bought in 2000 has Gigabit Ethernet: so does my Powerbook
from 2002. Not having it in the SB1 was a real oversight.

-Tim

On Mar 9, 2005, at 6:32 PM, Aaron Zinck wrote:

> "Timothy Knight Nelson" wrote
>> Are you streaming lossless audio? The data rate for lossless is such
>> that it is close to the usable bandwidth for 10Mbps networking
>> (10baseT
>> or 802.11b).
>>
>> -Tim
>
> In the interest of accuracy it should be noted that raw pcm at 1.4mbps
> is
> not really all that close to the usable bandwidth for a 10baseT
> connection.
> It may, however, be argued that it's close to the usable bandwidth on
> the
> much more tenuous 802.11b connection--particularly when one considers
> the
> fact that with wireless you share bandwidth with other wireless
> devices and
> are prone to dropouts due to interference problems compounded by the
> sb1's
> small (2mb) buffer.
>
>
>
>

Aaron Zinck
2005-03-09, 20:14
Sorry to hear you've had trouble.

I'd still argue that 100mbps isn't necessary: the bandwidth available to the
wired squeezebox shouldn't be affected by other network traffic as long as
you're using switches rather than hubs. Besides, I figure the proof is in
the pudding; I've been following this list for about 7 months now and while
many have had issues streaming raw pcm to wireless units, you're the first
person I can recall having bandwidth-related dropouts with a wired unit.
Any wired dropout issues usually stem from server load issues.

mherger
2005-03-10, 01:16
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 22:14:15 -0500, Aaron Zinck <azinck3 (AT) ufl (DOT) edu> wrote:

> Sorry to hear you've had trouble.
>
> I'd still argue that 100mbps isn't necessary: the bandwidth available to
> the
> wired squeezebox shouldn't be affected by other network traffic as long
> as
> you're using switches rather than hubs. Besides, I figure the proof is

I think Timothy is talking about a 10Mb _network_, not only SB's 10Mb
interface connected to fast ethernet. If all the traffic is comming and
going to the same machine (running SlimServer) this could be a problem.

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------
Help translate SlimServer by using the
SlimString Translation Helper (http://www.herger.net/slim/)

Aaron Zinck
2005-03-10, 07:26
> I think Timothy is talking about a 10Mb _network_, not only SB's 10Mb
> interface connected to fast ethernet. If all the traffic is comming and
> going to the same machine (running SlimServer) this could be a problem.

Ah, if that's the case then I'm in agreement.

Daryle A. Tilroe
2005-03-10, 13:34
Aaron Zinck wrote:

>>I think Timothy is talking about a 10Mb _network_, not only SB's 10Mb
>>interface connected to fast ethernet. If all the traffic is comming and
>>going to the same machine (running SlimServer) this could be a problem.
>
>
> Ah, if that's the case then I'm in agreement.
>

Unless you have an old 10Mb hub this should not be an issue. Most
people have 10/100 switches these days. In that case, assuming
your server has an 100Mb NIC, you have the full 10Mb each way
for one squeezebox. Actually I forget if SB1 was full duplex but
it almost doesn't matter since the vast majority is downlink.

--
Daryle A. Tilroe