PDA

View Full Version : SqueezeBox2_Lite for remote control and display only?



HMSeattle
2005-05-17, 20:03
Im a new user and really like my new Squeezebox2 running Slimserver and MusicMagic.

I'd really like to place several Squeezeboxes throughout my house, but I dont need the ability for them to actually stream the music since I have a whole house speaker system.

Has anyone created or have any ideas regarding creating a Squeezebox_Lite that would basically just be the display and operating system that could remotely control the *main* Squeezebox thats doing the heavy lifting? I currently approximate this via SoftSqueeze on a Laptop via the ShadowPlay plugin. It works great but its a too bulky.

Thanks!

JJZolx
2005-05-17, 20:36
Im a new user and really like my new Squeezebox2 running Slimserver and MusicMagic.

I'd really like to place several Squeezeboxes throughout my house, but I dont need the ability for them to actually stream the music since I have a whole house speaker system.

Has anyone created or have any ideas regarding creating a Squeezebox_Lite that would basically just be the display and operating system that could remotely control the *main* Squeezebox thats doing the heavy lifting? I currently approximate this via SoftSqueeze on a Laptop via the ShadowPlay plugin. It works great but its a too bulky.

Why not just synchronize all of the Squeezeboxes? Even if you don't wire all the boxes into a sound system you should get the display and control capability that you desire. The only downside is the increased network bandwidth that isn't actually being used. If you can use wired Ethernet wherever possible that shouldn't be much of a worry.

I don't quite understand your current Softsqueeze/Laptop solution unless you're also using the laptop for music output.
________
Ducati Hypermotard (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Ducati_Hypermotard)

HMSeattle
2005-05-17, 21:10
Sorry for not being clear. Let me try to explain better.

I have only one SB2 connected to my audio system. I dont own other SB2's. This is where my question arises.

My audio system has two amps, one drives the local sound and the other one is connected to speakers throughout my house, such as my living room, bed room, outside deck, etc. Both the audio system and SB2 is sitting in my family room.

I can walk into my family room, address the SB2 with the remote, select a playlist (or whatever) and then go out on my deck or in another room and listen to the music pumped through via Amp#2 while my kids can stay in the family room and watch..spongebob via AMP#1:)

What I'd like to do in the *other* rooms is control the SB2 in my family room while sitting in my living room (or out on the deck, etc). This way I dont have to go into the Family room.

I know I can buy other SB2s and sync them, but I'd be buying more than I need, since I dont need the *slave* SB2's to actually stream any music, just need them to act as a remote control for the SB2 in the Family room.

I currently schlep my laptop around, so if Im upstairs and want to change songs, I use SoftSqueeze on my laptop and the ShadowPlay plugin to control the SB2 in the family room... It works great but it would be nicer to embed an SB2 display in the wall and just use a remote to view and control the SB2 in the family room.

I hope this is clearer. Thanks for your patience!

dean
2005-05-17, 21:11
On May 17, 2005, at 8:03 PM, HMSeattle wrote:
> Has anyone created or have any ideas regarding creating a
> Squeezebox_Lite that would basically just be the display and operating
> system that could remotely control the *main* Squeezebox thats doing
> the heavy lifting? I currently approximate this via SoftSqueeze on a
> Laptop via the ShadowPlay plugin. It works great but its a too bulky.
We've thought about it, but creating a new hardware product that's
nearly the same as the existing one, but in smaller volumes would
make it cost the same or probably more.

Why not get another Squeezebox2?

HMSeattle
2005-05-17, 21:40
It would be more like *5* SB2s! One for each location.

I understand the volume vs. cost issue... thanks!

pfarrell
2005-05-17, 21:49
On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 21:10 -0700, HMSeattle wrote:
> What I'd like to do in the *other* rooms is control the SB2 in my
> family room while sitting in my living room (or out on the deck, etc).

Computers to this easily. As can PDAs and some cellphones

The problem with your idea is that other postings from the Slim
designers and executives indicate that the display is
the biggest single cost of the SqueezeBox, so
you seem to be asking for a case, display, network connection
and a semi-dumb CPU, leaving out the PCM-Audio convertor.
The last items is probably the cheapest, so you won't actually
save anything.

In theory, an RF remote control could do it as well, but
I can't even use the normal remote to do anything more complex
than start, stop and skip. I use a laptop for
all controls of my SqueezeBoxes.



--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

mherger
2005-05-17, 23:10
> What I'd like to do in the *other* rooms is control the SB2 in my
> family room while sitting in my living room (or out on the deck, etc).
> This way I dont have to go into the Family room.

Take a PDA and the Handheld skin or TelCanto to remote control slimserver.
If you have wireless around your house...

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------
Help translate SlimServer by using the
StringEditor Plugin (http://www.herger.net/slim/)

hunta
2005-05-18, 05:36
>Take a PDA and the Handheld skin or TelCanto to remote control slimserver.
If you have wireless around your house...
I've thought about this, but the only cheap wireless PDA's I've come across are 'b' rather than 'g' network devices - would that slow down the whole network?

mherger
2005-05-18, 05:51
>> >Take a PDA and the Handheld skin or TelCanto to remote control
>> slimserver.
>> If you have wireless around your house...
> I've thought about this, but the only cheap wireless PDA's I've come
> across are 'b' rather than 'g' network devices - would that slow down
> the whole network?

AFAIK only while actually using the device.

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------
Help translate SlimServer by using the
StringEditor Plugin (http://www.herger.net/slim/)

Kevin O. Lepard
2005-05-18, 07:36
>What I'd like to do in the *other* rooms is control the SB2 in my
>family room while sitting in my living room (or out on the deck, etc).
>This way I dont have to go into the Family room.

I can think of several solutions.

1) You could get a multibrand remote that has RF capabilities. For
example the Home Theater Master 800 (? check the number) will send RF
to an IR blaster that you could position in your family room.

2) You could install IR repeaters so that you could use the remote in
the different locations

3) You could get a palm sized computer (e.g., PalmOS or WindowsPC) to
use as a remote.

4) I believe some cell-phones can be made to do this via software
(e.g., Sailing Clicker) though I haven't explored this myself.

Personally, since (3) would give you visual feedback and the others
would not I think this is the best solution.

HTH

Kevin
--
Kevin O. Lepard
kolepard (AT) charter (DOT) net

Happiness is being 100% Microsoft free.

Matt Alioto
2005-05-18, 09:02
3) You could get a palm sized computer (e.g., PalmOS or WindowsPC) to
use as a remote.

4) I believe some cell-phones can be made to do this via software
(e.g., Sailing Clicker) though I haven't explored this myself.

Personally, since (3) would give you visual feedback and the others
would not I think this is the best solution.



I use telcanto on a Toshiba 740 w/ built in wireless controlling 2 SB2's
and 1 SB and it works like a charm aside from being a bit slow
(25,000songs mp3/150gigs). It also has a nice backup/restore feature
that makes telcanto more affordable ;)

The information contained in this e-mail is strictly confidential and for the
intended use of the addressee only; it may also be legally privileged and/or
price sensitive. Notice is hereby given that any disclosure, use or copying
of the information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited
and may be illegal. If you have received this message in error, please
notify the sender immediately by return e-mail. All e-mail sent to this
address will be received by Acacia Pacific Holding's e-mail system and is
subjected to archiving and review by someone other than the recipient.

Acacia Pacific Holdings has taken every reasonable precaution to ensure that
any attachment to this e-mail has been swept for viruses. We accept no
liability for any damage sustained as a result of software viruses and
advise you carry out your own virus checks before opening any attachment.

ceejay
2005-05-18, 11:37
I've thought about this, but the only cheap wireless PDA's I've come across are 'b' rather than 'g' network devices - would that slow down the whole network?

Although I'm still waiting for my first SB (!!) I'm anticipating the same problem ... the solution I have in mind is to add a second wireless network to run at B speed, to be used by my laptop(s) and PDA. OK, so I already had an old "B" access point lying around since I upgraded to "G", so the cost to me is just a 2 patch cable, but I guess a new one wouldn't cost that much...

HMSeattle
2005-05-18, 15:00
Thanks for the great advice. I think the handheld wireless PDA solution will be the one I use for now as I already know it will work since I do it this way with a clunky laptop.

Eventually I would like to have units embedded in the walls of each room for a cleaner (and cooler :) ) solution.