PDA

View Full Version : Lacking feature



Raptus
2005-10-15, 00:57
Hello there,

I've come a long way searching for my perfect digital audio playback device. Now I found SB2, which is perfect - almost.

The main reason I'm looking for a dedicated audio jukebox is that I don't want to have a (loud, power consuming and keyboard & mice requireing) computer running just to listen to my music.

I love all that extra features of SB2, vorbis, musepack und replaygain support for instance, but being based on a client-server architecture it simply doesn't do the trick for me.

I would love to see an upcoming SB3 featuring the possibility of connecting a IDE/SATA or USB HD drive to it, so it can be truly standalone. I would only use the network connections to move files around.

But that would require a major change in architecture, so I'll probably have to dream on or build my own box :-/

Patrick Dixon
2005-10-15, 02:25
Surely you want an iPod with a docking station then?

Raptus
2005-10-15, 02:37
Sorry, wasn't I clear on what I'd like?

iPod + docking station:
No Vorbis support
No Musepack support
No ReplayGain support
No SPDIF out
No Ethernet connectivity
No IR remote control
No 300GB+ storage solution
Closed architecture
Not worth the money.

EDIT: Ah, maybe you meant "something like an iPod but with all the extra goodies SB2 has", yes?

In my case it wouldn't even have to be mobile, but something that fit into a Hifi rack.

ceejay
2005-10-15, 03:00
Sorry, wasn't I clear on what I'd like?

iPod + docking station:
No Vorbis support
No Musepack support
No ReplayGain support
No SPDIF out
No Ethernet connectivity
No IR remote control
No 300GB+ storage solution
Closed architecture
Not worth the money.

EDIT: Ah, maybe you meant "something like an iPod but with all the extra goodies SB2 has", yes?

In my case it wouldn't even have to be mobile, but something that fit into a Hifi rack.

So, it needs a decent processor, a network, a big disc...

Sounds like a "silent" PC, possibly headless, in a rackable box... not too hard to do, if you're so inclined. Then you'd be able to connect it not only to the SB2 next to it in the rack but also all of the other SB2s that you'll want around the house!

Ceejay.

Raptus
2005-10-15, 03:15
Yes, that would be the "think big" solution, maybe some EPIA based system. Embedded hardware and dedicated OS/software still seem a more appropriate approach though, especially if there already are systems like SB2 with a mature LCD/remote controled interface.

Actually it doesn't need a decent processor, there are devices doing similar decoding tasks using a 180Mhz ARM CPU and less. SB2's RISC CPU should be up to it.

mherger
2005-10-15, 05:27
> Actually it doesn't need a decent processor, there are devices doing
> similar decoding tasks using a 180Mhz ARM CPU and less. SB2's RISC CPU
> should be up to it.

Decoding isn't the problem. But the management of a few thousand songs
(there are people using it with 100'000 songs!) and serving web pages does
need a little more performance. Go through the forums: there are user
running slimserver on devices like the linksys NSLU which use something
like 200MHz CPUs. But they are reportedly rather slow on scanning and
browsing.

--

Michael

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

2005-10-17, 08:33
Wouldn't this be close to what you are looking for?
http://fieldnetworks.com/slim/linkstation.html

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com] On Behalf Of ceejay
Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 6:00 AM
To: discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
Subject: [slim] Re: Lacking feature


Raptus Wrote:
> Sorry, wasn't I clear on what I'd like?
>
> iPod + docking station:
> No Vorbis support
> No Musepack support
> No ReplayGain support
> No SPDIF out
> No Ethernet connectivity
> No IR remote control
> No 300GB+ storage solution
> Closed architecture
> Not worth the money.
>
> EDIT: Ah, maybe you meant "something like an iPod but with all the
> extra goodies SB2 has", yes?
>
> In my case it wouldn't even have to be mobile, but something that fit
> into a Hifi rack.

So, it needs a decent processor, a network, a big disc...

Sounds like a "silent" PC, possibly headless, in a rackable box... not
too hard to do, if you're so inclined. Then you'd be able to connect it
not only to the SB2 next to it in the rack but also all of the other
SB2s that you'll want around the house!

Ceejay.


--
ceejay

paxtonc
2005-10-18, 10:45
You could buy a skipjam audio and report back on how it goes - seems to have everything you're looking for, and I'm wait for some user feedback on the device before I make a purchase decision :)

http://www.skipjam.com/products.php?page=prods_av02.php&osCsid=691ebde0913398a3f0abc2346628b99d

snarlydwarf
2005-10-18, 11:48
You could buy a skipjam audio and report back on how it goes - seems to have everything you're looking for,

Hrrm? It doesn't look that different from a Squeezebox in how it behaves (ie, no internal HD, all music fetched from the network). That seems to be what the Original Poster wanted: no need for a noisy PC.... that doesn't eliminate the PC requirement at all. It offers the same relief as the SB does in that regard: hide the PC far away from where you listen to music.

For more money than an SB2... and with no nifty display (how on earth do you control the thing without the sort of display slim uses? Especially nice with SB2 since it's so readable from the couch).

The 'benefits' I see in the skipjam are support for DRM audio files... and... um... that's it. Oh: an RF remote which also acts as a cordless phone. That could be sort of neato depending on how the blasting and learning works. But, then there's plenty of IR-blasting RF remotes...

You lose the display and the open source server (does skipjam support last.fm and audioscrobbler? what about the weblogger plugin? these are some of the reasons I love the open source nature of SlimServer) and probably a bunch of other things: those two are such biggies for me that I wouldn't even consider the skipjam.

That and "you have to run Windows to use this"... Which still leaves a PC on, and one with a monitor and keyboard, too. My SlimServer is an old P2-400 sitting on the floor in a nook beside my desk... no monitor or keyboard. Some day it may move to a closet but I haven't bothered. :)

paxtonc
2005-10-22, 00:44
1. Remote
SB - http://www.slimdevices.com/images/remote-180.gif
Skipjam - http://www.skipjam.com/_images/products/rfremote.jpg
You can get an RF remote w/ 10 line, 128x128 lcd, so no line of sight necessary. This enables you to: hide the unit; operate it from another room (depending on RF power); potentially search library more easily (more lines of display). There's no VF display that you can customise, so that's the trade-off. The phone thing - that's a LUI (loopy useless idea).

2. No need for any computer whatsoever. It's not based on a client-server architecture - its network agnostic, needing only TCP-IP. You just need a hard drive hanging off your network. So - it seems to be EXACTLY what the original poster was looking for.

I don't know where you got the "you have to run Windows to use this". It one of the key features explained throughout skipjams website. From their FAQ page, "Do I need a PC? No, a PC is not required." Have sent several emails to skipjam, just to confirm that no pc is necessary. It can be configured initially w/ a computer OR the rf controller, and after that you only need NAS.

3. Can be extended to whole house A/V control

4. Audio specs were better than SB, but prob. a push w/ SB2

Definitely falls behind if your interested in all the stuff you can get w/ open source. That's the trade-off, as slimserver requires that you have, at a minimum, NAS capable of running perl 5.6 code (I think). And skipjam costs more (but less than a modded RedWine SB2)

I'll probably end up getting an SB2, as I'm growing tired of waiting for some user feedback on the skipjam. But it sure would be nice if there were an early adopter out there w/ and extra $300.

Raptus
2006-09-08, 07:43
Decoding isn't the problem. But the management of a few thousand songs (there are people using it with 100'000 songs!) and serving web pages does need a little more performance. Go through the forums: there are user
running slimserver on devices like the linksys NSLU which use something like 200MHz CPUs. But they are reportedly rather slow on scanning and browsing.
I wouldn't mind if I had no webinterface/fancy search system, the ability to browse through a filesystem tree with the remote/lcd would do just fine.

aubuti
2006-09-08, 08:19
It's still not clear to me what you didn't like about the NAS solution that was suggested in post #7 in this thread (almost a year ago). I'm not sure, but I expect you can connect the NAS directly to the SB with a crossover cable. And now there are several NASs with vendor support for slimserver.

Raptus
2006-09-08, 10:25
It's the added cost and complexity.

Do you agree that the level of self sufficiency and ease of use most DAPs offer is interesting, especially for non tech savvy people?

I'm in no hurry so I'll keep watching the different solutions that appear.

aubuti
2006-09-08, 11:52
I figure that most/many "non tech savvy people" are happy shuffling CDs or using an iPod + docking station. What really pushed me to SB (and looking at similar devices such as Roku, Sonos, Streamium, Airport Express, etc.) is wanting to have my whole CD collection available in multiple places. You can't get that with your "standalone" solution, so I suppose that's not a big factor for you.

Have you looked at the Olive line? It costs a lot more than a NAS + SB, but otherwise it sounds like what you're looking for.

Raptus
2006-09-08, 12:37
Thanks for the hint, I hadn't seen Olive. They come close, featurewise I only miss support for Vorbis, Musepack and Replay Gain. I find them overpriced, but it fits the audiophile market (the price premium for the larger disks is ridiculous, Olive Musica 160GB is 1099U$, the 250GB version is 1499U$ <-WTF??).

JJZolx
2006-09-08, 12:39
It's the added cost and complexity.

Do you agree that the level of self sufficiency and ease of use most DAPs offer is interesting, especially for non tech savvy people?

I'm in no hurry so I'll keep watching the different solutions that appear.
There are no additional solutions. The design of the Squeezebox _requires_ a computer to drive it. It sounds like you went searching for something and somehow found a solution that was 180 degrees the opposite of what you desire.

Evan an NAS is just a computer (mostly) dedicated to file serving. Once you install SlimServer on one it becomes obvious that many of the consumer grade NAS's are just lower CPU powered general purpose computers with some kind of user-friendly management interface.

aubuti
2006-09-08, 13:21
There are no additional solutions. The design of the Squeezebox _requires_ a computer to drive it. It sounds like you went searching for something and somehow found a solution that was 180 degrees the opposite of what you desire.
Exactly. In the original post Raptus noted "...client-server architecture it simply doesn't do the trick for me." In that case, a slim client (from _Slim_ Devices or anyone else) will never fit the bill.

Raptus
2006-09-08, 13:24
There are no additional solutions. The design of the Squeezebox _requires_ a computer to drive it.
I'm sorry, by solutions I meant products/devices not necessarily from SlimDevices.