PDA

View Full Version : Wish List



rock
2006-04-03, 09:57
I don't even have my Squeezebox yet (as I've mentioned in a different thread) and I'm already making demands! But since the Slim Devices product devlopment folks monitor these groups (which is very cool) what the heck...

1) A headless (no display) Squeezebox. Combine that with a Nokia web pad and it's a Sonos killer.

2) A head (display) only Squeezebox that connects to the headless unit above and it's a Sonos and Nokia killer. Ok, fine it doesn't quite kill the Nokia web pad, but I'm an old Unix guy and like everything command line. If it can't be done on a VT-100 I don't want it!

3) A USB IR blaster interface that has multiple (maybe 4) zones that are adressable on a per Squeezebox basis. Plug it into the computer running Slim server and it's a Xantech killer. From a hardware perspecive there are these things:
http://www.promixis.com/products.php?section=usbuirt&source=froogle
But $50 per zone, not to mention the unweildy USB cables strung all over with multiple units seems less than elegant.

funkstar
2006-04-03, 10:17
I think your first two have been sugested before. Personaly i can't see them happening. I would guess that two of the bigest cost componets are the processor/decoder module and the wirless interface, both of which you would need for either a headless or head only device.

I may be missing what you mean by the third request, but i believe the SB already has the ability to pass IR codes to the server for it to pass onto other applications. It can also server as an IR transmitter by plugging a lead into the headphone port. Other will be albe to clarify/correct me on this point, it's something i don't know a lot about.

rock
2006-04-03, 10:58
I think your first two have been sugested before. Personaly i can't see them happening. I would guess that two of the bigest cost componets are the processor/decoder module and the wirless interface, both of which you would need for either a headless or head only device.


Now a headless device I'd think you could forgo the wireless, the application would be a centralized amp system. If someone took the trouble to run speaker wires to remote locations it would seem pretty easy to pull Cat-5 over. But we're only talking the difference of the cost of the display so you are probably right about the cost efffectiveness. Now if there could be a headless system that could do four different streams, to four different amps that might be more effective.

For a head only unit, I don't see how you could do it any cheaper so another product wouldn't make sense.

That all being said, if there is a way for one Squeezebox to control what stream is fed to another Squeezebox (admittedly I haven't looked) I could accomplish what I want to with existing hardware. I could use the exisiting displays on my headless wannabes to send encouraging thoughts to my amplifiers.



I may be missing what you mean by the third request, but i believe the SB already has the ability to pass IR codes to the server for it to pass onto other applications. It can also server as an IR transmitter by plugging a lead into the headphone port. Other will be albe to clarify/correct me on this point, it's something i don't know a lot about.

I am actually asking for another device here, not a modification to the existing Squeezebox. In my application my amps (and FM tuners) sit in a rack (in one location) and feed out to the rest of the house. I'd like the Squeezebox to receive IR from the FM tuner remote, pass it down to the Slim server machine and blast right out of there to control the tuners. Now with some coding and the hardware in my original post this could proabably be done. But you've spoiled me, I'm looking for a solution as physically elegant and easy to set up as the Squeezebox itself.

Mark Lanctot
2006-04-03, 11:00
Now a headless SB3, I wonder what that would look like?

Hmm...

;-)

geoffb
2006-04-03, 11:26
On 4/3/06, rock wrote:
>
> funkstar Wrote:
> > I think your first two have been sugested before. Personaly i can't see
> > them happening. I would guess that two of the bigest cost componets are
> > the processor/decoder module and the wirless interface, both of which
> > you would need for either a headless or head only device.
> >
>
> Now a headless device I'd think you could forgo the wireless, the
> application would be a centralized amp system. If someone took the
> trouble to run speaker wires to remote locations it would seem pretty
> easy to pull Cat-5 over. But we're only talking the difference of the
> cost of the display so you are probably right about the cost
> efffectiveness. Now if there could be a headless system that could do
> four different streams, to four different amps that might be more
> effective.

Isn't a headless system that can do four different streams to four
different amps just the same as a PC with four good-quality
sound-cards, running four copies of either SoftSqueeze or
SqueezeSlave, running to four remote sets of speakers?

Cheers
Geoff

pfarrell
2006-04-03, 11:29
Geoff B wrote:
> Isn't a headless system that can do four different streams to four
> different amps just the same as a PC with four good-quality
> sound-cards, running four copies of either SoftSqueeze or
> SqueezeSlave, running to four remote sets of speakers?

Or one M-Audio Delta 1010, which does eight or ten channels
of output at once. 24x96kHz, and all that.

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

rock
2006-04-03, 11:49
Isn't a headless system that can do four different streams to four
different amps just the same as a PC with four good-quality
sound-cards, running four copies of either SoftSqueeze or
SqueezeSlave, running to four remote sets of speakers?

Yes, If SqueezeSlave can be run in multiple instances on a single non-MS based machine streaming to diffent audio outputs (be they soundcards or a USB / Firewire device) and if the different instances of SqueezeSlave can be controlled by different physical SqueezeBox units on the network.

geoffb
2006-04-03, 12:01
On 4/3/06, rock wrote:
>
> geoffb Wrote:
> >
> > Isn't a headless system that can do four different streams to four
> > different amps just the same as a PC with four good-quality
> > sound-cards, running four copies of either SoftSqueeze or
> > SqueezeSlave, running to four remote sets of speakers?
> >
> Yes, If SqueezeSlave can be run in multiple instances on a single
> non-MS based machine streaming to diffent audio outputs (be they
> soundcards or a USB / Firewire device) and if the different instances
> of SqueezeSlave can be controlled by different physical SqueezeBox
> units on the network.

As far as I know you can run as many copies of SqueezeSlave as you
want, and Richard has added (or is going to add) the ability to
specify the audio device to use for each. I'm not quite sure why you
want the physical SqueezeBox device to control SqueezeSlave - maybe
I'm misunderstanding your intent? Usually SS allows you to do away
with having a physical SB, as long as you are prepared to run speaker
wire and use a Nokia or similar to control it all.

Cheers
Geoff

rock
2006-04-03, 12:25
Usually SS allows you to do away
with having a physical SB, as long as you are prepared to run speaker
wire and use a Nokia or similar to control it all.

There's the rub. I think for $200 (yep I got two during last month's sale) the SB is dandy little control unit. The speaker wire is run, but I have no intention of purchasing Nokia web pads.

The alternative would be to use 2 of the unused wires (assuming I could do this with a differential transmitter) in the cat5 bundle to send the digital audio down to my amps with converter dongles like PoE uses. All my Cat5 is home run, so this is doable, but then I'd need outboard DA units which can get cost prohibitive.

And.... while I'm at it run power over the last two wires in the bundle, although I think most PoE systems double up on the conductors.

And lastly.... like I said, I'm spoiled. I want this thing all running within 10 minutes of hooking it all up like the SB.

stinkingpig
2006-04-03, 21:28
rock wrote:...
> That all being said, if there is a way for one Squeezebox to control
> what stream is fed to another Squeezebox (admittedly I haven't looked)
> I could accomplish what I want to with existing hardware. I could use
> the exisiting displays on my headless wannabes to send encouraging
> thoughts to my amplifiers.
>

Shadowplay plugin.

--
Jack at Monkeynoodle dot Org: It's a Scientific Venture...
Riding the Emergency Third Rail Power Trip Since 1996