PDA

View Full Version : Simple Squeezebox without sound capability



hanpa
2005-10-29, 00:45
The versatility of the slimserver is huge, the Squeezebox H/W and remote may be used for information display and remote control, home automation etc. I would definitely by more units if there was an optional cheaper version without the audio outputs, perhaps also only with the wireless ethernet. The remote control may be integrated on the panel of the new device or have a holder to put it in. Half the cost, only wireless connection, wow! I'd buy several such units to display various information at different places at home.

dean
2005-10-29, 07:24
To build the product you describe would only take a little off the
manufacturing cost but wouldn't add substantially to the volume and
would require the overhead of an additional different product. In
all likelyhood it would cost _more_ to build. (The specific
components you require, wireless and display, are the most expensive
parts...)

On Oct 29, 2005, at 12:45 AM, hanpa wrote:

>
> The versatility of the slimserver is huge, the Squeezebox H/W and
> remote
> may be used for information display and remote control, home
> automation
> etc. I would definitely by more units if there was an optional cheaper
> version without the audio outputs, perhaps also only with the wireless
> ethernet. The remote control may be integrated on the panel of the new
> device or have a holder to put it in. Half the cost, only wireless
> connection, wow! I'd buy several such units to display various
> information at different places at home.
>
>
> --
> hanpa
>

Michaelwagner
2005-10-29, 08:29
But what a tribute to the design that people are thinking of completely different things to do with it as a building block!

Would Slim ever consider selling components?

For the example in my mind, of course, DJing, DJs hate having a single anything. It makes for a single point of failure. So could I buy the boards from you and make, for example, a dual SB (we could call it 2SB to distinguish it from SB2 :-) ) ?

orrinc
2005-10-29, 09:43
I don't think it would lower the price, but I would like to see the capability to USE a Squeezebox as a display-only device!

Streaming the audio probably uses MUCH more processing power than just updating the display. I only use one of my Squeezeboxes to stream audio (I have a multi-room audio system already), so the others are just used as remote displays, but syncing them to the main SB puts a huge load on my server.

So how about a player mode that does not stream audio to the device?

Is that feasible?

Michaelwagner
2005-10-29, 10:08
I suspect a plug-in to send messages to multiple units would be easy enough.

In fact, you can do it with the CLI. A little program could interrogate the running slim, find out what it's playing, and send the information to the other slims.

Thomas, are you reading this? Is there any reason this wouldn't work?

max.spicer
2005-10-29, 11:45
Sounds like you want the SlimDRM! http://www.slimdevices.com/slimdrm.html

Max


The versatility of the slimserver is huge, the Squeezebox H/W and remote may be used for information display and remote control, home automation etc. I would definitely by more units if there was an optional cheaper version without the audio outputs, perhaps also only with the wireless ethernet. The remote control may be integrated on the panel of the new device or have a holder to put it in. Half the cost, only wireless connection, wow! I'd buy several such units to display various information at different places at home.

orrinc
2005-10-29, 15:46
LOL!!!! Very Funny!

indianajones
2005-10-29, 16:04
sorry to say it but this is the silliest thread i've seen yet on here. i understand the explanation, but its just silly. a sb without sound capability would be like buying a car without an engine...

hanpa
2005-10-30, 12:37
"sorry to say it but this is the silliest thread i've seen yet on here. i understand the explanation, but its just silly. a sb without sound capability would be like buying a car without an engine..."

So let's hope that someone else than Slim Devices develops them. I just thought that it would be very simple for Slim Devices to produce this unit and that it would be attractive to the market provided some reduction of the cost compared to the full Squeezebox.

It may sound silly to you but there have been a lot of "silly" ideas with an enormous market volume...

indianajones
2005-10-30, 12:42
well i will say this: i also thought putting a sb in a car would be silly. but there's an active thread here discussing that very issue and i must say it looks pretty spectacular...

orrinc
2005-10-30, 12:49
There's nothing silly about it! Having a bright, readable, affordable wireless display device would be extremely useful for those of us that don't want to be glued to a TV or video monitor all day long to see useful information- such as what song is playing.

And my experience with SB indicates that synchronizing multiple audio streams just to synchronize displays puts a severe load on my PC.

indianajones
2005-10-30, 12:51
well if that's what you're looking for, then a pocket pc or sony psp would fit the bill nicely, and they already exist...

GoCubs
2005-10-30, 15:46
Streaming the audio probably uses MUCH more processing power than just updating the display. I only use one of my Squeezeboxes to stream audio (I have a multi-room audio system already), so the others are just used as remote displays, but syncing them to the main SB puts a huge load on my server.

So how about a player mode that does not stream audio to the device?

Is that feasible?

Have you tried out Felix's ShadowPlay plug-in http://www.gwendesign.com/slimserver/dev_software.htm ? It allows you to see/control a different Squeezebox without actually streaming the audio data.

I have distributed audio thoughout my home from one receiver with multiple amps for the different rooms. I use one SB2 where the receiver is to stream the audio. I then have separate SB's in the different rooms that are linked via ShadowPlayP (the permanent version of the plug-in). This way I can see/control the source audio from any SB without any lag/streaming load. It really works quite well, especially now that I can use an IR emitter on the main SB2 to turn on the receiver/amps from the other rooms.

-Greg

stinkingpig
2005-10-30, 16:03
orrinc wrote:

>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>A poll associated with this post was created, to vote and see the
>results, please visit http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=17599
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Question: How many of these would you buy?
>
>- None
>- Perhaps one
>- At least one
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>There's nothing silly about it! Having a bright, readable, affordable
>wireless display device would be extremely useful for those of us that
>don't want to be glued to a TV or video monitor all day long to see
>useful information- such as what song is playing.
>
>And my experience with SB indicates that synchronizing multiple audio
>streams just to synchronize displays puts a severe load on my PC.
>
>

It shouldn't, unless the PC is severely underpowered. Anyway, the silly
part of the idea is as follows:

It's come up about 5 times already, and each time Slim Devices has
explained that removing the audio components would not save enough money
to make the device worthwhile... basically you'd save a few bucks to get
a Squeezebox that anyone you hoped to sell it to later would consider
crippled. In order to provide you this "feature", SDI would have to
revamp their production and ordering process, producing another
mainboard. I'm sure most people have noticed that they never have more
than one product in production at once, in wired and wireless versions.
The other version of this argument is that people want a headless
Squeezebox, in which case the cost justification is probably there for
the end user, but is not necessarily there for SDI.

So, it makes more sense at this time for everyone to buy a fully
functional Squeezebox and use it for the project; if you don't want
sound, don't hook it up to anything. But if you later change your mind
or want to sell the device, it's still fully functional. By similar
logic, many people buy wireless and then use them in wired networks.

--
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.

Bruce Hartley
2005-10-31, 12:37
I wanted an SB without sound capability some time back.
So there's one more crazy person for you.

indianajones
2005-10-31, 19:34
but again, if you want to use it as a simple wireless-enabled display for your a/v needs, wouldn't a pocket pc or psp do the same thing, or am i missing something?

Michaelwagner
2005-10-31, 21:58
I think the point is, Slim server is sending music to one. That one is going into a multiroom amp. Every room should have a display showing what is playing. Slim server can drive the displays on other slims, but isn't all that interested in driving the displays on pocket PCs.