PDA

View Full Version : SB3 on gizmodo.com



shvejk
2005-10-25, 21:46
It is nice to see SB3 mentioned. However, the post is full of incorrect info:

- Squeezebox scans your music libraries
- higher quality audio on this model than previous models
- 802.11g support (finally!)
- a better display

I wish they would know what they were talking about and give real reasons the box is the best on the market.

http://us.gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/squeezebox-3-drops-133026.php

kdf
2005-10-25, 21:55
On 25-Oct-05, at 9:46 PM, shvejk wrote:

>
> It is nice to see SB3 mentioned. However, the post is full of incorrect
> info:
>
> - Squeezebox scans your music libraries
> - higher quality audio on this model than previous models
> - 802.11g support (finally!)
> - a better display
>
> I wish they would know what they were talking about and give real
> reasons the box is the best on the market.
>
seems the commenter also has her/his facts completely back-assward

-kdf

max.spicer
2005-10-26, 00:29
I think shvejk meant that these were the incorrect facts that were stated in the review!

Max


On 25-Oct-05, at 9:46 PM, shvejk wrote:

>
> It is nice to see SB3 mentioned. However, the post is full of incorrect
> info:
>
> - Squeezebox scans your music libraries
> - higher quality audio on this model than previous models
> - 802.11g support (finally!)
> - a better display
>
> I wish they would know what they were talking about and give real
> reasons the box is the best on the market.
>
seems the commenter also has her/his facts completely back-assward

-kdf

mattybain
2005-10-26, 02:39
I was spitting at this comment on the article "This product seems pretty much identical in functionality to the Roku Soundbridge, except it costs over $100 more. When is someone going to make a network mp3 player that I can connect directly to my external harddrive full of music? That's exactly what people have been hacking the Soundbridge and the Linksys NSLU2 to do..."

How I would love to reply to that comment and correct it but unfortunately there is no scope to do so on Gizmodo.

Craig, James (IT)
2005-10-26, 02:45
The last thing I expect from gizmodo is accuracy!

To play devil's advocate, $100 will seem like a lot to the average
person for two products that do essentially the same thing.

James
--------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.

mattybain
2005-10-26, 03:27
I know it is difficult for the average user to know but I would never touch a Roku Soundbridge even if they paid me never mind to save $100. Much to my disgust I have a mate who has one and have experienced his woes up close :(

Craig, James (IT)
2005-10-26, 03:49
By the way it's even worse in the UK. 100 ($175) between the M1000 and the SB3. Ouch!

This new case may be more appealing to the 'average user' but the price certainly won't be.

James
--------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.

Fifer
2005-10-26, 06:01
I think the 100 difference needs some explanation.

The Roku Soundbridge is available from Expansys for 133 (which is a 96 difference) but there's no stock and it does not appear to include the wireless adapter which is on free offer from other vendors. Broadbandstuff have the offer with the wifi adaptor, but their price is 153 which is a 76 difference.

However, the Roku pricing is for a product which has been on the market for some time (maybe even EOL judging by the Expansys offer) where the SB3 price is likely to come down to the sub-200 level after a few months if past releases are any guide. I'd say that on a like for like basis, the real difference is lekely to be closer to 30 or 40.

I know which I'm likely to buy.

Craig, James (IT)
2005-10-26, 06:16
The first web site I found on google (it would pain me to provide a link where someone could buy one) was 136.16 for the SB1000 including the wireless adaptor. The SB3 is 236 on dabs.com who usually have very competitive prices.

I'm not trying to promote the Roku product but this is a HUGE price difference - I actually had no idea before looking today.
And I doubt very much the price will come down at all soon - how many outraged posts on the forum would that provoke!?

James
--------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.

Michaelwagner
2005-10-26, 06:17
this comment on the article
When is someone going to make a network mp3 player that I can connect directly to my external harddrive full of music? I think the point, though, is there and is important. Hackers (I mean that in the most positive sense of the world) like us understand how powerful it is to connect multiple units up to a home network. Most of the rest of the world doesn't even have a home network beyond what their linksys 4 port router gives them, and I'm willing to bet 3/4 of them wouldn't know that they in fact have a home network by virtue of the router.

If Slim made a Slug-like device (or a linkbox like device) that fit under an SB2 (or behind an SB3), they would make adoption by non-geeks a lot easier. For that matter, just private label a slug with a bigger processor ...

This is why I think server performance on small boxes is more important than many people on this forum think ... because it's going to be critical in the future for non-geeks to use the slim.

Aaron Zinck
2005-10-26, 07:11
> I was spitting at this comment on the article "This product seems pretty
> much identical in functionality to the Roku Soundbridge, except it costs
> over $100 more. When is someone going to make a network mp3 player that
> I can connect directly to my external harddrive full of music?

Funny thing is...'someone' already does. Aside from the various high-end
devices that do this, the decided low-priced Omnifi DMS1 has this exact
capability (the drive can be a basic external usb hd--doesn't need to be a
NAS since it doesn't require server software). Only problem is the device
is terrible. Slow, clunky, poor audio quality, practically featureless.

I don't know why this reviewer seems to think that a device that you can
connect an external hard drive to is somehow the "Holy Grail" of audio
streamers--seems like a pretty short-sighted view in the world of
entertainment convergence. It's amazing to me that someone (i.e. this
reviewer) who's been exposed to the broad scope of the SlimDevices approach
to audio delivery and distribution could long to drag around an external
hard drive everywhere they might want their music.

Fifer
2005-10-26, 07:43
The first web site I found on google (it would pain me to provide a link where someone could buy one) was 136.16 for the SB1000 including the wireless adaptor. The SB3 is 236 on dabs.com who usually have very competitive prices.
The official importers are offering the SB3 for 229 at cooltopia.com.

mattybain
2005-10-26, 07:48
It looks like 239GBP on Dabs now for Wireless and 179 for Wired. That is a 60GBP difference between Wired and Wireless. How can they justify that when there is only a $50 difference from Slimdevices?

That makes the Wireless 1GBP = $1.2 AND $1.39 for wired.

What gives Dabs?

Craig, James (IT)
2005-10-26, 07:49
> The official importers are offering the SB3 for 229 at cooltopia.com.

Sorry. Just the 93 difference then.

James
--------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.

Fifer
2005-10-26, 08:20
At the moment, yes. Could you please PM me the link to the cheap Roku if you don't want to post it? I can't find it.

Craig, James (IT)
2005-10-26, 08:28
No! you might buy one!

James
--------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.

kdf
2005-10-26, 08:47
On 26-Oct-05, at 12:29 AM, max.spicer wrote:

>
> I think shvejk meant that these were the incorrect facts that were
> stated in the review!
>
I know. then I read the bottom of the article, where some idiot thinks
the roku came first.

Craig, James (IT)
2005-10-26, 08:51
I see there's a article up on the register now, where they think the
display is still character based...
"a bright, crisp 20 x 32 vacuum fluorescent display"


James
--------------------------------------------------------

NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.

Paul Webster
2005-10-26, 09:05
I see there's a article up on the register now, where they think the
display is still character based...
"a bright, crisp 20 x 32 vacuum fluorescent display"
I don't think that the author thought it was 20 or 32 rows of text deep.
I think that they just missed the 3 off the front of "320".

mattybain
2005-10-26, 09:52
On 26-Oct-05, at 12:29 AM, max.spicer wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>I know. then I read the bottom of the article, where some idiot thinks
the roku came first.

I took your original comment to be directed at shvejk!!, glad you cleared that one up I couldn't understand what he had said wrong.

Thats is what I was so cross at, all these commenters who clearly know nothing about what they are saying and not being able to do anything about it.

Paul Webster
2005-10-26, 11:28
I don't think that the author thought it was 20 or 32 rows of text deep.
I think that they just missed the 3 off the front of "320".
Register article now updated - maybe because of the note I sent him.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/26/slim_devices_squeezebox_3/

shvejk
2005-10-26, 12:54
> Register article now updated - maybe because of the note I sent him.
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/26/slim_devices_squeezebox_3/

Yeah, but they still have the WMA support backward. SB3 natively supports
WMA. No need for transcoding.

stinkingpig
2005-10-26, 16:43
Josef Shvejk wrote:

>
> Register article now updated - maybe because of the note I sent him.
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/26/slim_devices_squeezebox_3/
>
>
> Yeah, but they still have the WMA support backward. SB3 natively
> supports WMA. No need for transcoding.


But at least el Reg reporters cheerfully admit that they're drunk when
they write the articles. One of my favorite sources of IT news.

--
Jack At Monkeynoodle Dot Org: It's A Scientific Venture!
"I spent all me tin with the ladies drinking gin
so across the Western ocean I must wander" -- trad.