PDA

View Full Version : SB3 runs warm, even when it is idle?



Roy2001
2006-06-30, 01:43
I found SB3 runs pretty warm, even I turn it off. I disconnect the power supply and it cool down. Is it normal?

funkstar
2006-06-30, 02:08
pretty much. a SqueezeBox never really powers off, 'off' is just a player state with different settings for the display and brightness etc. I guess if you set the screen to be completely black it wouldn't be generating any heat, but the rest of the unit will still be powered.

stevieweevie
2006-06-30, 11:45
Mine gets warm as well.

I'd like to see this improved in a later release of the hardware.

radish
2006-06-30, 15:17
Mine gets warm as well.

I'd like to see this improved in a later release of the hardware.

Why? (and for that matter, how?)

stevieweevie
2006-07-01, 00:49
Why? (and for that matter, how?)

Global Warming. All attributed to millions of Squeezebox users leaving their Squeezebox's running 24/7.

How - I am sure that SlimDevices will innovate in this area in due course. They love a good challenge.

kdf
2006-07-01, 01:01
On 1-Jul-06, at 12:49 AM, stevieweevie wrote:

>
> How - I am sure that SlimDevices will innovate in this area in due
> course. They love a good challenge.
>
squeezebox v4. hifi PLUS spaceheater with near 97% effiiciency. I'm
up for it
-k

radish
2006-07-01, 15:18
Global Warming. All attributed to millions of Squeezebox users leaving their Squeezebox's running 24/7.


SB is rated at 5A/2V. Let's say it uses 100% of that when idle (which is crazy). It'd use up less than $10 of electricity in a full year. Realistically I'd be surprised if the annual usage was much over $1. Now I'm all for saving resources (many would call me a crazy eco-hippy) but there are FAR more important things to worry about before that. You probably contribute more to global warming by driving to the store once than by running your SB all year.

Michaelwagner
2006-07-01, 18:49
A minor nit ...

SB is rated at 5A/2V.
I think that's backwards - it should be 2A@5V.

Otherwise correct. 10 watts is just over the power of a nightlight. And that's a theoretical maximum.

Elsewhere, in another thread, someone from Slim said wired Squeezeboxen use about 1A, wireless ones about 1.5A.

So a wired one is more like 5 Watts, wireless 7.5 Watts.

Not exactly a global warming issue.

The always-on feature on most televisions uses more power than this.

radish
2006-07-01, 20:11
A minor nit ...

I think that's backwards - it should be 2A@5V.


Indeed - my typo. But happily the math works out the same either way :)

Michaelwagner
2006-07-01, 20:26
happily the math works out the same either way :)
Indeed. Funny how that works. :-)

That's why it was only a nit.

Although I'd hate for someone to go out and buy a 2V power supply on the basis of the incorrect info.

Radish, what are you doing up at this hour? It must be like 4AM where you are, no?

radish
2006-07-02, 10:00
Radish, what are you doing up at this hour? It must be like 4AM where you are, no?

I'm in New Jersey - same time zone as you I believe (Toronto, right?).

Michaelwagner
2006-07-02, 10:16
Right. Why did I think you were in England? Must be losing brain cells. Actually, I now live in Oakville, a suburb of Toronto, but it's still the same time zone as NJ.

Simon Still
2006-07-02, 23:29
I thought the target for TV's on standby was now <1watt. I know squeezebox
isn't a huge power consumer but it's still too much - moving from a
situation where i have a CD player in each room that consumes nothing when
i'm not using it to a squeezebox in each room (say 4? 5? of them) i'm upping
my constant power consumption by 25w. That may be small but it's
significant.

If you've a 10 watt nightlight it's hugely inefficient. A 10 watt compact
fluorescent bulb is enough to light a small room.

On 7/2/06, Michaelwagner <
Michaelwagner.2abvvb1151860801 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
>
>
> Right. Why did I think you were in England? Must be losing brain cells.
> Actually, I now live in Oakville, a suburb of Toronto, but it's still
> the same time zone as NJ.
>

Michaelwagner
2006-07-03, 00:12
According to http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-4.html


Most TVs will get to a standby level of a few watts in a matter of seconds

On this page: http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6475_7-6400401-3.html?tag=lnav

they give actual measurements of 2.5-5.2 watts for CRTs on standby, 13-37 for plasma TVs on standby, etc.

Actually, we have some 7 Watt nightlights, and some 4 watt nightlights. I don't know where I got 10 watts from ... missing brain cell, I guess.

radish
2006-07-03, 16:31
Right. Why did I think you were in England? Must be losing brain cells. Actually, I now live in Oakville, a suburb of Toronto, but it's still the same time zone as NJ.
Well I am British, but have been in the US for a couple of years.


I thought the target for TV's on standby was now <1watt. I know squeezebox
isn't a huge power consumer but it's still too much - moving from a
situation where i have a CD player in each room that consumes nothing when
i'm not using it to a squeezebox in each room (say 4? 5? of them) i'm upping
my constant power consumption by 25w. That may be small but it's
significant.
OK, because I think you guys are swell I took the trouble to hook my SB up to a power meter. It (SB2/wireless) uses 5W constant - regardless of state - unless the brigtness is at min (zero) in which case it uses 4W. So you could have 5 for 20W. If you really think that's significant, the best I can suggest is putting them on a timer switch. After a couple of years the switches may pay for themselves :)

Michaelwagner
2006-07-03, 16:40
Well I am British, but have been in the US for a couple of years.
Ah, so I'm not entirely altzheimered out yet. Whew!


(SB2/wireless) uses 5W constant - regardless of state - unless the brigtness is at min (zero) in which case it uses 4W.
Like I said ... a nightlight.

I don't think this will be the appliance that breaks the Kyoto accord.

Ross L
2006-07-03, 17:38
I tested my Squeezebox to use ~3watts in 'standby' mode, and around 11w while playing music. I tested using a Kill A Watt:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=kill+a+watt&btnG=Google+Search

Michaelwagner
2006-07-03, 18:47
Cool link, thanks. Cool device.

Makes one wonder how much power loss there is in the wall wart, if the actual usage is above the theoretical maximum of 10W.

radish
2006-07-03, 21:59
I tested my Squeezebox to use ~3watts in 'standby' mode, and around 11w while playing music. I tested using a Kill A Watt:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=kill+a+watt&btnG=Google+Search

That's also what I used. I wonder why we got such different readings? I saw no difference between playing and idle.

kuetstef
2006-07-04, 04:18
I don't think this will be the appliance that breaks the Kyoto accord.

The one which is consuming a lot of energy is probably not the SB, it's the server where the slimserver is running on... Nevertheless if the industrie is finally able to design TV devices with a standby consumption off around 1W, also slimdevices should be able to do that.

Stefan

Mark Lanctot
2006-07-04, 06:24
Guys:

This is silly.

The Squeezebox is not a TV.

It consumes the power of a typical nightlight. A computer on idle consumes ten times this much or more.

If you can afford a Squeezebox surely you can afford the $5-$10 a year it takes to power it.

And all the Squeezeboxes ever sold probably amount to the power consumption of a half-dozen air conditioners, which I'm running every day now and which is costing $1-$2 A DAY. And that's with "cheap" Canadian power prices of $0.05/kWh.

I'm all for power conservation, but we are splitting hairs here. This really is silly. Sure it all adds up, but so does filling a swimming pool with an eyedropper.

If you want to actually save power, spend $3000 (or however much they cost) on a high-efficiency air conditioner. That extra 2-5% energy savings really has an impact. Saving 2-5% on the power consumption of a Squeezebox amounts to pennies. Saving even 50%-75% of a Squeezebox power consumption is still trivial.

Or change to compact fluorescent light bulbs. Go from 60W - 13W and power a dozen Squeezeboxes with the savings...

And what about the amplifier you use to hear the Squeezebox sound? 50W to start. Why is no one whining about this?

Mark Lanctot
2006-07-04, 06:37
Makes one wonder how much power loss there is in the wall wart, if the actual usage is above the theoretical maximum of 10W.

Aren't switching power supplies ~90% efficient?

So those switching to linear power supplies, watch out, you're ruining the planet. ;-)

radish
2006-07-04, 08:57
Nevertheless if the industrie is finally able to design TV devices with a standby consumption off around 1W, also slimdevices should be able to do that.


Show me a TV which maintains an active wireless network when in standby and I'll concede the point.

Simon Still
2006-07-04, 10:40
I think the point here is the move to increasing numbers of devices that
consume power when we're not 'using' them. 5 years ago if i wasn't
listening to music my hifi power consumption was nil. Now i'm running a P4
pc (seems to run at 70w constant) plus a couple of SB's at 5w each. They're
not killing the planet by themselves but they're not helping.

When the P4 dies/gets replaced/moved to the office to only be switched on
when needed I'll be looking for something more efficient as a server.

Mark Lanctot
2006-07-04, 11:09
Now i'm running a P4
pc (seems to run at 70w constant)

Now THAT isn't trivial. And if anyone is running a P4 Prescott, it's even worse.

So yes, conserving power in the server definitely adds up, but this is hardly Slim Devices' fault.

This is why I'm interested in fanless servers because they are extremely efficient in addition to being silent. Processors are getting better in this respect - there are some fanless VIA processors that are decent performance (~1 GHz) at less than 10W power consumption.

Unfortunately fanless parts come at such a premium payback is ~10 years.

Michaelwagner
2006-07-04, 20:02
if the industrie is finally able to design TV devices with a standby consumption off around 1W, also slimdevices should be able to do that.
If you read the link I posted about half a page back, no televisions do this.

kuetstef
2006-07-05, 00:24
If you read the link I posted about half a page back, no televisions do this.

There are some like http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/%20INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start?CategoryName=tv_size_30to42&ProductSKU=KDL40S2000&TabName=specs&var2=

Or some more here (page unfortunately in German but just have a look on the line "Leistung Sleep od. Standby (Watt)"): http://www.topten.ch/liste.php?p=107

I agree that there are bigger fishs to fry but nevertheless if you can do something you should. If you have already reached the top like radish mentioned, it's just fine. I personaly would prefer to set up a centraliced slimserver which I can share with my friends. In this way you can save to run several slimserver devices and that for sure adds up. Unfortunately the slimserver is in case of security and the SB in case of supporting a slimserver by name instead of IP@ not yet completely ready for that. See also http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25210

Stefan

rudholm
2006-07-05, 00:30
If you really want to share one slimserver among several friends, you might want to consider using a VPN such as http://openvpn.net/

It works very well at providing security. It also eliminates the problems of dynamic IP addresses since addresses within the VPN are (or at least can be) static.

mecouc
2006-07-05, 01:16
These things all add up. Our homes have many devices idling at about 3-10W - TVs, DVD/video, microwaves, phone chargers left plugged in, PCs.

Let's say that's 60W per household in idle equipment. The UK has about 25m households (I think). That makes 1.5 gigawatts consumed just in the UK by equipment that's "turned off." So reducing idle power consumption to 1W can make a big difference.

The best solution is to provide an old fashioned thing called a "power switch" that lets you turn something completely off - zero watts. I'd like to see one on the Squeezebox v.4. (And my PC should have one on the front too, so I don't have to grovel on the floor to turn it off at the wall).

Michaelwagner
2006-07-05, 05:41
Now I see a little clearer where this is going.

In order to come up with a proper solution, one has to analyze the whole system and not just one component.

A working slim system consists of one (generally) server, one to many squeezeboxes, one to many amplifiers or powered speakers or headphones or whatever.

The squeezebox consumes about 5 watts, 4 if it turns off the display.

A server consumes about 70 watts if it's a PC, about 20 watts perhaps if it's a NAS.

Amplifiers consume anywhere from 20 watts up. Powered speakers I don't know.

Slim Devices has gone to great lengths to turn off most of the big power consumers in this bigger picture.

They have added support for WOL, which would allow the slim server, if it's running on a PC, to be turned off and woken up again.

They have modified the way the slim server works so that it doesn't needless access the disk. This would allow the disk to spin down on a server that's idle, saving another 10W or so. If the case holding the disk has thermal sensing, that might shut off a fan too after a while.

They have added support, 2 different ways (geek port and quieting the outputs) to turn off your amplifier when the SB is not in use. There was a request a while ago that they add relay contacts to turn off attached amplifiers. I don't know if they're considering that or not.

These enhancements, turning off probably several hundred watts when the device is not in use, probably save a lot more than trimming the 5 watts the SB itself is using.

However, it is possible that, in a new design, the A/D converter, the headphone amplifier and one or two other odds and ends could be turned off without compromising it's ability to turn itself back on again. I'm not sure. It's not an area that I know much about.

However, were I Slim Devices, I'd work on better support for turning off the big guys first. Turning off the attached devices that are 10x or more bigger power consumers would be a higher priority for me than shrinking the consumption of the SB itself.

That's my $0.02, anyways.

Oh, and kuetstef? Ich kann Deutsch lesen.

mherger
2006-07-05, 07:55
> A server consumes about 70 watts if it's a PC, about 20 watts perhaps
> if it's a NAS.

The NAS I ordered today (not for my personal use, though) has 2x800Watt
power supplies (and a processor more powerful than all my home servers
together). I expect it to consume more than 20 watts. OTOH there's my PC
based, dedicated slimserver which shouldn't use more than 25 watts. ;-)

But your idea is correct: there's much more in a SB installation than the
4-5 watts the device needs.

> They have added support, 2 different ways (geek port and quieting the
> outputs) to turn off your amplifier when the SB is not in use.

Add a third to the list: custom IR codes. I'm using my amp's remote
control to control the SB, too. Hitting the big green button top right
will turn on both of them, big red means off.

> Oh, and kuetstef? Ich kann Deutsch lesen.

....und schreiben. I didn't want to tell him :-)

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------
Help translate SlimServer by using the
SlimString Translation Helper (http://www.herger.net/slim/)

radish
2006-07-05, 08:17
These things all add up. Our homes have many devices idling at about 3-10W - TVs, DVD/video, microwaves, phone chargers left plugged in, PCs.

Let's say that's 60W per household in idle equipment. The UK has about 25m households (I think). That makes 1.5 gigawatts consumed just in the UK by equipment that's "turned off." So reducing idle power consumption to 1W can make a big difference.


And this is where scale comes into play. 1.5 GW being used 24/7 is 13.1 billion kWh per year - and that sounds like a lot when taken out of context. But in 2003 the UK used a total of 346.1 billion kWh (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/uk.html). Thus, all the devices left in standby in the entire country account for 3.8% of the national consumption. So sure, we could all spend time, effort and money lowering that to 2.8% (wooh!) or we could look at the bigger picture and figure out what will make an actual difference. The whole focus in recent months on standby power consumption is a complete red herring by the government to try and make people think they're serious about the environment.

EDIT: Apologies for the previously broken maths - that'll teach me to calculate first thing in the morning! My argument is probably not as well supported by the new figures, but hey, that's statistics for you :)

Michaelwagner
2006-07-05, 08:31
I think Radish has a point. Standby power is important, because it's 24/7, but for a lot of appliances, it's dwarfed by the power usage when the unit is on.

Someone mentioned the standby power of a microwave. I can't imagine it has any standby requirement. I don't have a remote for my microwave. Unless there's a clock in the microwave, none of it runs when it's in standby.

Televisions have a standby power consumption so that they can respond to IR codes from your remote, but more importantly, the picture tube is kept slightly warm to cut down on startup time. I'm actually old enough to remember when this wasn't true, and picture tubes took like 30 seconds to start up. The IR receiver power consumption is trivial - it's the standby current to the filaments of the video tube that's important.

The SB shuts essentially none of itself down, other than dimming the screen. I suppose it could do more. But even in the small picture of the SB, server & amplifier, the SB itself is small potatoes.

But in the larger picture of how we spend our whole lives, we spend much more power (electricity and other forms of energy) than that by refrigerating things that don't need it, by not insulating our houses properly, by not planting trees to shade our houses and cut down on air conditioning, by living so far from work and commuting so far every day, by living in houses with 5 external surfaces to radiate heat in the winter, rather than apartments with 1 or 2, by having a car per person, a cell phone per person, by not having skylights in our houses and then turning on the lights in the middle of the day, etc, etc, etc.

So, as Radish says, it would be more useful if we dealt with the larger issues rather than the smaller ones. Even a small improvement in a large issue yields more benefit than a large improvement in a trivial power consumption.

kuetstef
2006-07-05, 08:57
Oh, and kuetstef? Ich kann Deutsch lesen.
I thought that your name sounds pretty German ;-). However, not everybody which lives in the U.S. and has a German name also speaks German at the end...

Mark Lanctot
2006-07-05, 09:03
I think Radish has a point. Standby power is important, because it's 24/7, but for a lot of appliances, it's dwarfed by the power usage when the unit is on.

Someone mentioned the standby power of a microwave. I can't imagine it has any standby requirement. I don't have a remote for my microwave. Unless there's a clock in the microwave, none of it runs when it's in standby.

Televisions have a standby power consumption so that they can respond to IR codes from your remote, but more importantly, the picture tube is kept slightly warm to cut down on startup time. I'm actually old enough to remember when this wasn't true, and picture tubes took like 30 seconds to start up. The IR receiver power consumption is trivial - it's the standby current to the filaments of the video tube that's important.

The SB shuts essentially none of itself down, other than dimming the screen. I suppose it could do more. But even in the small picture of the SB, server & amplifier, the SB itself is small potatoes.

But in the larger picture of how we spend our whole lives, we spend much more power (electricity and other forms of energy) than that by refrigerating things that don't need it, by not insulating our houses properly, by not planting trees to shade our houses and cut down on air conditioning, by living so far from work and commuting so far every day, by living in houses with 5 external surfaces to radiate heat in the winter, rather than apartments with 1 or 2, by having a car per person, a cell phone per person, by not having skylights in our houses and then turning on the lights in the middle of the day, etc, etc, etc.

So, as Radish says, it would be more useful if we dealt with the larger issues rather than the smaller ones. Even a small improvement in a large issue yields more benefit than a large improvement in a trivial power consumption.

Yes!

Do things that will actually make a real difference!

- use compact fluorescent lights. A 13W CF replaces a 60W incandescent, I think you use 11W CFs to replace 40W incandescents.

- rather than using the large oven, use the microwave or the toaster oven.

- consider newer, more efficient appliances, particularly refrigerators. My utility actually has a buyback program for old refrigerators used as secondary/beer fridges. And try to get rid of those old chest freezers.

- upgrade windows

- upgrade insulation. A cheap, easy thing to do is to install foam gaskets around outlets and put safety caps on outlets when not in use.

These things will actually make a difference unlike a measly savings of a few watts on a Squeezebox.

It's all a matter of perspective. There's a term out there, "penny wise, pound foolish". Saving power on a Squeezebox while ignoring the much, much larger items certainly qualifies.

Mark Lanctot
2006-07-05, 10:05
> A server consumes about 70 watts if it's a PC, about 20 watts perhaps
> if it's a NAS.

The NAS I ordered today (not for my personal use, though) has 2x800Watt
power supplies (and a processor more powerful than all my home servers
together). I expect it to consume more than 20 watts.



Umm, yeah, but it probably costs 20X what a Squeezebox costs.

Also it's not a home NAS, or even a small office NAS.

mherger
2006-07-05, 11:18
> Umm, yeah, but it probably costs 20X what a Squeezebox costs.

More than this.

I know, the example is extreme. I just wanted to point out that "NAS"
isn't the role model for an energy efficient, low-noise device. NAS
devices have been noisy, big suckers, long before they entered our homes.

> Also it's not a home NAS, or even a small office NAS.

I consider the ReadyNAS, recently sold bundled with the SB3, a SOHO NAS.
I've read a test where they measured the older ReadyNAS X6 at about 55
watts and well above 40dBA.

--

Michael

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

Michaelwagner
2006-07-05, 11:31
I thought that your name sounds pretty German ;-). However, not everybody which lives in the U.S. and has a German name also speaks German at the end...

This is true. However, I live in Canada, and my name is very misleading. I am actually a Hungarian, not a German. But during the Austro-Hungarian Empire, many Hungarians took German sounding names. Wagner is a very popular Hungarian name.

I speak German for a completely other reason. I worked in Bonn for 2 years.

Michaelwagner
2006-07-05, 11:36
One of the things we do in my factory is we put the air compressors in their own room and turned the heat way down there. The heat generated by the air compressors is enough to keep the room warm and even in the winter I don't pay for the heat. It's quite warm enough from the air compressors alone.

fuzzyT
2006-07-05, 12:12
Michael Herger wrote:

> I've read a test where they measured the older ReadyNAS X6 at about 55
> watts and well above 40dBA.

FYI: The next version of the ReadyNAS firmware is in beta and being
community tested. Some of the features in this update will address
issues of noise and power consumption. It looks like there will be a
disc spin-down feature and a change to the adaptive fan speed control
that should reduce the RPMs in some cases.

More here:
http://infrant.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4578

One of the cool things about Infrant (like SlimDevices) is that they
listen to their customers and constantly improve their products.

I like my NV. It does exactly what it's supposed to and I rarely have
to think about it.

--rt

Roy2001
2006-07-05, 13:39
Guys:

This is silly.

The Squeezebox is not a TV.

It consumes the power of a typical nightlight. A computer on idle consumes ten times this much or more.

If you can afford a Squeezebox surely you can afford the $5-$10 a year it takes to power it.........................

And what about the amplifier you use to hear the Squeezebox sound? 50W to start. Why is no one whining about this?

No, I am not worrying about the bill. I have a computer runs 24/7 for 8+ years. I am just curious as I assume SB3 should be like other comsumer equipments which consume as little as 3W when idle.

kdf
2006-07-05, 13:52
Quoting Roy2001 <Roy2001.2ahp4n1152132001 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>:

> comsumer equipments which consume as little as 3W when idle.
>
Define "as little as": Does 5W not count as in teh range of "as little as"?

Define "idle": VFD is a large part of the power draw, so if you have a
clock displayed, it's not realy "idle".

-k

Roy2001
2006-07-05, 14:17
Quoting Roy2001 <Roy2001.2ahp4n1152132001 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>:

> comsumer equipments which consume as little as 3W when idle.
>
Define "as little as": Does 5W not count as in teh range of "as little as"?

Define "idle": VFD is a large part of the power draw, so if you have a
clock displayed, it's not realy "idle".

-k

My receiver, DVD players, HDTV receiver (which runs 24/7), and other equipements never runs warm when idal. Even my laptop which is in standby mode.

I am not blaming SB3. Actually I really enjoy it. It is just the fact that it is warm no matter you are streaming the music or not.

kdf
2006-07-05, 14:31
Quoting Roy2001 <Roy2001.2ahqzb1152134401 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>:

> I am not blaming SB3. Actually I really enjoy it. It is just the fact
> that it is warm no matter you are streaming the music or not.

streaming music has nothing to do with it. The amplifier is what does
the heavy work when you listen to music. SB3 is simply passing bits
around using very little power, and perhaps a little more effort if
you have headphones connected. It is the display that uses the power.

-k

Zten
2006-07-05, 15:35
The biggest reason it gets modestly warm is becuase of its small size. 5 W to 7.5 W is actually quite a bit of heat. Put that much heat in a something the size of a cell phone and it would burn your skin, but if it was in a big ol' metal box (like the Audio PA in your system) it would run cool as a cucumber. Maybe that's why the audiophile guys want it in a big box, less heat means less thermal noise (kTB). :o)

Michaelwagner
2006-07-05, 19:44
Another reason is that it has no (as in none, zero) ventilation holes. Even a few small holes and you'd never notice the waste heat and this whole discussion would be moot (or should that be mute? :-) )

I suspect Slim didn't put holes in it so as not to have to deal with moisture, splashing, etc.

Roy2001
2006-07-05, 23:13
Quoting Roy2001 <Roy2001.2ahqzb1152134401 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>:

> I am not blaming SB3. Actually I really enjoy it......

streaming music has nothing to do with it. The amplifier is what does
the heavy work when you listen to music. SB3 is simply passing bits
around using very little power, and perhaps a little more effort if
you have headphones connected. It is the display that uses the power.

-k
No, I am using digital output only. And as I said, even when it is idle after I press "power" button, it is still warm.


The biggest reason it gets modestly warm is becuase of its small size. 5 W to 7.5 W is actually quite a bit of heat. Put that much heat in a something the size of a cell phone and it would burn your skin, but if it was in a big ol' metal box (like the Audio PA in your system) it would run cool as a cucumber. Maybe that's why the audiophile guys want it in a big box, less heat means less thermal noise (kTB). :o)
That is what I am thinking. But surprisingly, I cannot feel the difference when it is working or idle. Just a little bit warm. So it is not consuming a lot of power when it is streaming music.

GregD
2006-07-06, 00:04
Very late to this discussion - but the fanless VIA box I bought to run SlimServer supports Wake on Lan direct from hibernation.

I was concerned about having the PC on all the time - so this works well - after 45 mins of not being used the server hibernates - and is back in less than a minute of turning the SB on.

Every little helps.

MadScientist
2006-07-06, 00:34
I'm glad I'm not the only one concerned with unnecessary power usage. My SB3 is turned off when not in use -it only takes a few seconds to connect to the nerwork/slimserver so I don't see much justification in leaving on when not in use (I have a pefectly good watch and don't need another clock).

I have a Dell Optiplex as my Slimserver/fileserver. When not in use it is in 'standby' (9 watts power consumption). At night it is switched off by a scheduled task in Windows and turned on again in the morning by the Bios.

OK, I know these power savings are trivial, but I see it as establishing a mind-set and the more it is encouraged, the more likely it is to spread to the institutions that can really have an impact.

MS

rudholm
2006-07-07, 14:15
Quoting Roy2001 <Roy2001.2ahp4n1152132001 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>:

> comsumer equipments which consume as little as 3W when idle.
>
Define "as little as": Does 5W not count as in teh range of "as little as"?

Define "idle": VFD is a large part of the power draw, so if you have a
clock displayed, it's not realy "idle".

-k

The VFD's heaters stay on all the time, even if nothing is displayed or you have the display brightness set to zero.