PDA

View Full Version : New Slim Devices Product? "The Transporter" per 6moons.com??



daniels5
2006-07-24, 12:43
Hello,

Is there a new Slim Devices Product called "The Transporter" as reported by 6moons.com?

see http://www.6moons.com/news/news.html

"July 06: The Transporter (by Slim Devices) - "Today, Slim Devices introduced Transporter [$.....], the most advanced networked audio system available. Transporter's sound quality surpasses that of even the most sophisticated high-end compact disc players. It also offers a broad range of options not available on any CD player, including thousands of Internet radio stations, Pandora's award-winning personalized music service and Rhapsody's two-million track collection of online music.

"The Transporter uses the AK4396 DAC, the newest and most advanced professional-grade converter from AKM. Its performance is remarkable especially at the high frequencies that create the sense of imaging and realism. Hailed as a 'miracle DAC chip', its low out-of-band noise allows the use of low-order output filters with higher cutoffs, resulting in preservation of phase and reduced distortion within the audible band.

"Transporter's gold-plated circuit board is arranged to keep digital and analog sections separate, and to minimize jitter through careful management of clock signals. Power is supplied to the DAC and analog stages by three separate super-regulator circuits. The balanced amplifiers use precision polyphenylene film capacitors. Individual op-amp packages ensure low noise and immeasurable crosstalk between channels."

From the photos it appears to have both balanced and unbalanced outputs, and an IEC A/C plug AND what looks to be an XLR AES/EBU digital input and output. Cool.

If this is simply a mockup, it incorporates many good features from my point of view. I look forward to hearing what the real story proves to be.

/Daniel

PS. Okay this is getting clearer. Here is an article with tomorrows posting date on Audioholics.com. The article gives more details on the Slim Devices Transporter and a more realistic retail price of $1,999 and an expected ship date of 18 September. Looks cool, huh?

http://www.audioholics.com/news/pressreleases/SlimDevicesTransporter.php

Thanks to Phil and radish for the timely updates. /Daniel

bklaas
2006-07-24, 12:51
considering there is absolutely no mention of The Transporter on slimdevices.com, yet the picture on 6moons looks pretty darn authentic, I predict that, if anything, this thread is going to get a TON of replies in 5...4...3...2...1

Mark Lanctot
2006-07-24, 12:54
cat|bag

bag|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->cat

seanadams
2006-07-24, 12:55
That price is wrong

radish
2006-07-24, 12:56
One word:

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhh.... ...

kdf
2006-07-24, 12:59
I predict that, if anything, this thread is going to get a TON of replies in 5...4...3...2...1

What is the mass of a reply anyway? :)

mherger
2006-07-24, 12:59
> From the photos it appears to have both balanced and unbalanced outputs
> an IEC A/C plug and what looks to be an XLR digital input and output

I've got no idea about all those connectors. But I like the one on the
right, looking like good old RS232 :-)

--

Michael

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

shabbs
2006-07-24, 13:00
Clearly that's a bogus image... the remote is wrong. ;)

Jacob Potter
2006-07-24, 13:00
On 7/24/06, Mark Lanctot
<Mark.Lanctot.2bgtpn1153770901 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
> bag|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->cat

This is not, in fact, the first time the word "Transporter" has been
seen here; see the thread entitled "SB4 and/or a high-end model,
when?"

But it is the first time that pictures and a price tag have shown up. :)

- Jacob

gutted
2006-07-24, 13:02
That price is wrong

Care to elaborate? :)

Siduhe
2006-07-24, 13:03
That price is wrong

[straight face] Let me guess, the decimal is in the wrong place - $110.00, right ? [/straight face]

Mark Lanctot
2006-07-24, 13:13
On 7/24/06, Mark Lanctot
<Mark.Lanctot.2bgtpn1153770901 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
> bag|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->cat

This is not, in fact, the first time the word "Transporter" has been
seen here; see the thread entitled "SB4 and/or a high-end model,
when?"

But it is the first time that pictures and a price tag have shown up. :)

- Jacob

True, I remember seeing it. Just couldn't remember where.

Mitch Harding
2006-07-24, 13:13
I want one. Any idea on when can we expect an official announcement?

On 7/24/06, seanadams <
seanadams.2bgtxz1153771201 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
>
>
> That price is wrong
>
>
> --
> seanadams
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> seanadams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25771
>
>

mherger
2006-07-24, 13:26
> Clearly that's a bogus image... the remote is wrong. ;)

Why? Because it's lacking the tactile screen?

--

Michael

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

shabbs
2006-07-24, 13:37
Why? Because it's lacking the tactile screen?
Because the image suggests the remote has made a departure from the standard issue we're all so familiar with. ;)

radish
2006-07-24, 13:40
Edit: You're right, I'm sure it was in that thread, but interestingly the post is definitely not there right now!
Yes it is : http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=115979&postcount=34

Search for "transporter" in all forums and you'll see the post and some replies in that thread.

Mark Lanctot
2006-07-24, 13:46
Yes it is : http://forums.slimdevices.com/showpost.php?p=115979&postcount=34

Search for "transporter" in all forums and you'll see the post and some replies in that thread.

Ah yes. Missed that.

radish
2006-07-24, 14:08
This link from audioholics http://www.audioholics.com/news/pressreleases/SlimDevicesTransporter.php (seems to be breaking the release date of tomorrow) that Phil posted in the Audiophile forum mentioned a price of $2k.

Mitch Harding
2006-07-24, 14:10
The Audioholics press release has it at $1999:
http://www.audioholics.com/news/pressreleases/SlimDevicesTransporter.php

Maybe they meant $19.99.

On 7/24/06, Siduhe <Siduhe.2bgu6b1153771501 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
wrote:
>
>
> seanadams Wrote:
> > That price is wrong
>
> [straight face] Let me guess, the decimal is in the wrong place -
> $110.00, right ? [/straight face]
>
>
> --
> Siduhe
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Siduhe's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=723
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25771
>
>

bklaas
2006-07-24, 14:48
Okay, so it kind of looks like this thing's for real.

Though I've been a huge Slim fan for years now, I gotta be honest, I'm deflated. SqueezeBoomBox-- I'd preorder it today. Affordable SB4 with onboard "knob"--that at least makes my immediate wish list. But an audiophile product at that price point? Unless I get one gratis, count me way, way, way out. I couldn't give two licks about gold-plated circuit boards.

#!/ben

Mitch Harding
2006-07-24, 14:57
While I do agree that having a SqueezeBoomBox would be great, I'm also
somewhat excited about this new product. The price point is the only thing
that concerns me -- I'm having a hard time justifying this as a $2000
purchase. Even the $1100 price scares me. :) I think this has officially
ruled me out as an audiophile. Part of me is hoping that both sites are off
on the price -- if it was under $1000, then I'd have to start counting my
pennies.

On 7/24/06, bklaas <bklaas.2bgz1b1153777801 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Okay, so it kind of looks like this thing's for real.
>
> Though I've been a huge Slim fan for years now, I gotta be honest, I'm
> deflated. SqueezeBoomBox-- I'd preorder it today. Affordable SB4 with
> onboard "knob"--that at least makes my immediate wish list. But an
> audiophile product at that price point? Unless I get one gratis, count
> me way, way, way out. I couldn't give two licks about gold-plated
> circuit boards.
>
> #!/ben
>
>
> --
> bklaas
>
> "the Nokia770 skin guy"
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> bklaas's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=58
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25771
>
>

pfarrell
2006-07-24, 15:01
Mitch Harding wrote:
> thing that concerns me -- I'm having a hard time justifying this as a
> $2000 purchase. Even the $1100 price scares me. :) I think this has
> officially ruled me out as an audiophile.

You bet, of course, listening to anything by vinyl starts excluding you,
as does paying less than $1000 for cables. :-)

But if you search the archives, there are zillions of folks who
want a SqueezeBox with more of an audiophile look or formfactor.

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

Mitch Harding
2006-07-24, 15:03
Yeah -- there is definitely demand for this product. And I have to admit,
although I am a fan of the current SB look, I think this new product looks
pretty slick itself. It definitely has the audio component look that some
people have been clamoring for.

On 7/24/06, Pat Farrell <pfarrell (AT) pfarrell (DOT) com> wrote:
>
> Mitch Harding wrote:
> > thing that concerns me -- I'm having a hard time justifying this as a
> > $2000 purchase. Even the $1100 price scares me. :) I think this has
> > officially ruled me out as an audiophile.
>
> You bet, of course, listening to anything by vinyl starts excluding you,
> as does paying less than $1000 for cables. :-)
>
> But if you search the archives, there are zillions of folks who
> want a SqueezeBox with more of an audiophile look or formfactor.
>
> --
> Pat
> http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html
>
>

Robert_W
2006-07-24, 15:04
I'm curious as to the target audience for this new "SB4" if you will. If it is for real just how many people are there that would actually buy one? I mean I'm totally happy with the sound quality now from my SB3 and can't imagine it getting much better. Not $1700 + better anyway. I guess there's a market for everything though when it comes to "high end" audio. We all like our toys!

Michaelwagner
2006-07-24, 15:21
considering there is absolutely no mention of The Transporter on slimdevices.com,
At 6:20PM EDT, it's on the Slim web site in all it's glory.

And it has a knob!

Michaelwagner
2006-07-24, 15:31
The price would appear to be $1700. The $1999 "bundle" comes with an SB3 now, billed to your card now, for $299, and a "transporter" in Sept for $1700.

jbm0
2006-07-24, 15:34
Though I've been a huge Slim fan for years now, I gotta be honest, I'm deflated. SqueezeBoomBox-- I'd preorder it today. Affordable SB4 with onboard "knob"--that at least makes my immediate wish list. But an audiophile product at that price point? Unless I get one gratis, count me way, way, way out. #!/ben
Well... it all depends on how it sounds, really.

Fancy replacement power supplies and mods, plus one stock SB3 as parts, don't add up to that much less than this box, and it's an inconvenient pain in the behind to do all the separate ordering and trans-shipping -- not to mention that the cramped quarters and tight board design of the existing little SBs reportedly set some limits on how good the resulting device can possibly sound.

For me, it all comes down to the execution. If Sean and chums have indeed gotten this thing really right, I'll need to start saving my pennies -- even though a lot of their effort has apparently gone into the D/A and analog section, and I'm primarily interested in the cleanest AES/EBU or S/PDIF (kudos for the apparent BNCs, dudes!) digital output I can get my hands on.

You see, I've drunk heavily of the SlimServer Kool-Aid, and believe that one's music archive really needs to be stored on normal computer hardware, for ease of expanding storage and because tested backup strategies exist, not in some proprietary box made by an audio company. It then comes down to just the best possible interface for getting the music from the network into the stereo. If they've managed a real improvement in that interface's audiophilic qualities, they've got my interest.

Oh, and the commercial-building background-sound market is used to paying this sort of price for a tough, high-quality device in this formfactor -- look at some of the Sirius/XM receivers for that niche.

bklaas
2006-07-24, 15:35
Me and every other former Audiotron owner will undoubtedly be feeling warm and fuzzy about the addition of the *knob*, which I see as a validation of our repeated pleas. I wish I could be excited about the rest of it...

I will say that it looks beautiful and is sure to be a welcome addition in the immaculate high-end living rooms of the audiophile elite. Me, I'm just happy if I can hear the tunez over my 2-year-old screaming at me to play more Beck.

keeping my fingers crossed for the eventual launch of the SqueezeBoomBox,
#!/ben

seanadams
2006-07-24, 15:36
The price would appear to be $1700. The $1999 "bundle" comes with an SB3 now, billed to your card now, for $299, and a "transporter" in Sept for $1700.

Correct - this is a discount/bonus for those who pre-order. SRP is $1999.

funkstar
2006-07-24, 15:38
I will say that it looks beautiful ...
indeed it does. Very impressed with the inductrial design, the dual VFD displays is amazing :)

Michaelwagner
2006-07-24, 15:38
OK, I get it that there are digital inputs, in case you want to use the DAC in the Transporter.

But what's the XLR input connector doing there? XLR is analogue ...

And what are the two unlabelled BNC connectors for?

davep
2006-07-24, 15:39
Well, having 4 SBs in the house already, I sure don't need another one if my intention is to replace my current music room SB3 with a Transporter for serious listening - I would then have two SB3s to find a home for. Also, the "SB3 now" part of the deal is at list price, so I am not seeing the point of this as I don't even save anything. All I can see is that it would get me on a waiting list for an early delivery once the mid September shipping starts.

davep

{edit] OK, I have seen Sean's reply now - it is not $1700 but $1999. You get a free SB3 if you order now.

Mitch Harding
2006-07-24, 15:40
Yes, but as there's no option to just buy the transporter (yet?), the
effective price is still $1999 unless you were already planning to buy a
SB3.

I guess the 30 day guarantee is still in effect, so if you buy a transporter
and don't feel it's worth the $1700 extra cost, then you can always return
it.

I'm excited to see the new product, but I'm pretty sure I won't be
purchasing one at that price, unless I get lucky in the lottery in the near
future (and I'd have to be extremely lucky since I don't even purchase
lottery tickets).

On 7/24/06, Michaelwagner <
Michaelwagner.2bh14b1153780501 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
>
>
> The price would appear to be $1700. The $1999 "bundle" comes with an SB3
> now, billed to your card now, for $299, and a "transporter" in Sept for
> $1700.
>
>
> --
> Michaelwagner
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Michaelwagner's Profile:
> http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=428
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25771
>
>

Michaelwagner
2006-07-24, 15:40
Me, I'm just happy if I can hear the tunez over my 2-year-old screaming at me to play more Beck.
Your 2 year old likes Beck?

As in Jeff Beck?

Or is there another Beck that appeals to 2 year olds?

Jacob Potter
2006-07-24, 15:40
On 7/24/06, Michaelwagner
<Michaelwagner.2bh0nn1153779901 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
> At 6:20PM EDT, it's on the Slim web site in all it's glory.
>
> And it has a *knob*!

And RS-232.... hmm. Wonder if it would be possible to hack RS232 into an SB2 :)

- Jacob

Michaelwagner
2006-07-24, 15:42
Correct - this is a discount/bonus for those who pre-order. SRP is $1999.
If I pre-order, will the lovely brushed aluminum panel fall off again as a reward for my loyalty?

Mind you, I like the stark minimalism of my SB3 (all black) that sits on my all-black computer desk.

tomsi42
2006-07-24, 15:43
I'm curious as to the target audience for this new "SB4" if you will. If it is for real just how many people are there that would actually buy one? I mean I'm totally happy with the sound quality now from my SB3 and can't imagine it getting much better. Not $1700 + better anyway. I guess there's a market for everything though when it comes to "high end" audio. We all like our toys!

Having listened to my SB3 with some high end Electrocompaniet kit, I will agree that it is good (I used a linear PSU), especially at the price.

But there are always room for improvements, and that gets expensive fast. This unit has balanced outputs, world clock input, clean power supply and more. Stuff that the audiophiles have been pining for in this forum. The price seems right to me.

I want one - so I have to start saving ;)

seanadams
2006-07-24, 15:46
OK, I get it that there are digital inputs, in case you want to use the DAC in the Transporter.

But what's the XLR input connector doing there? XLR is analogue ...


The XLR input is for AES/EBU. It's very similar to S/PDIF but uses a higher voltage, balanced signal, for professional setups and long-distance runs.


And what are the two unlabelled BNC connectors for?

Those are also S/PDIF. Your choice of capacitor-coupled RCA (like Squeezebox and most other equipment) or the professional transformer-coupled BNC.

The BNC is often preferred for its locking action and controlled impedance.

jsnicholas
2006-07-24, 15:46
I have not seen or heard anything about how the S/W functionality compairs to the SB3. I was hoping this new box would handle WMA lossless natively and not have to have it transcoded before streaming. The reason is that my music collection resided on a Infrant NAS that can run slimserver, but can not transcode WMA lossless.

autopilot
2006-07-24, 15:46
SqueezeBoomBox-- I'd preorder it today. Affordable SB4 with onboard "knob"--that at least makes my immediate wish list. But an audiophile product at that price point? Unless I get one gratis, count me way, way, way out. I couldn't give two licks about gold-plated circuit boards.

I agree 101% I want a SqueezeBoomBox yesterday.

I wont be buying a Transporter, but i hope they do well. What i really hope is going on here is that thing is the start of Slim Devices broadening their product range (which they need to do IMO). Often companies annouce there most expensive flagship product first. Slim Devices obviously listened to the community begging for a more audiophile solution and thats partly where the Transporter has come from. Is there anything else around to compare this to?

Many people are asking for a boombox/radio type device and i think it would be the next logical step now, apart from maybe a device like the Tranporter - same kind of form factor but with a price and spec closer to the SB3. I am sure they would ship huge numbers. I would be very interested to know why exactly the other $1700 over the SB3 is going on. Is it just the super DAC (and a few other tweaks)?

I have no doubt there is a market for this, but one thing is for sure; they will really have to sort out SlimServer. I love it, but it has faults and bugs. Those bugs are annoying with the SB3, but if i had forked out $2000 (plus the other few grand for app/speakers to do it justice) i would be more than annoyed, i would be going absolutly nuts.

Lastly, i think the name 'Transporter' is a bit on the dull side compared to the lovely 'Squeezebox', but then so are the kind of uber-audiophiles that would be interested in buying one...




Just teasing!

/runs




PS, good luck Slim Devices! This is the kind of move that can make or break a company. I hope you know what you are doing, but it does look the business and i am sure you do. I love the slightly retro style too :)

Mitch Harding
2006-07-24, 15:49
Reading this makes me feel like I've been bashing the $1999 price. I don't
mean to. It does seem an appropriate price for what is being offered. It
just makes me wish I had more money! :)

On 7/24/06, tomsi42 <tomsi42.2bh1l01153781102 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
wrote:
>
>
> But there are always room for improvements, and that gets expensive
> fast. This unit has balanced outputs, world clock input, clean power
> supply and more. Stuff that the audiophiles have been pining for in
> this forum. The price seems right to me.
>
> I want one - so I have to start saving ;)
>
>
> --
> tomsi42
>
> SB3, Rotel RC-1070/RB-1070, dynaBel Exact, Kimber Kable 4TC and Timbre.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> tomsi42's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2477
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25771
>
>

bklaas
2006-07-24, 15:55
Your 2 year old likes Beck?

As in Jeff Beck?

Or is there another Beck that appeals to 2 year olds?

no no, the other Beck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beck#Discography). She literally goes nuts when Que Onda Guero comes over the squeezebox.

For the record, I do own several things that Jeff Beck plays on (including the obscure Jeff Beck's Guitar Shop), but there's no way my little one would be into it...

#!/ben

daniels5
2006-07-24, 15:55
Hi Ben,

I suggest that we wait until we see all the Transporter can do before discounting it out of hand.

I have long been a fan of Wadia Compact Disc Players and DACs because of ALL that a Wadia does, and does right.

I am currently using a Wadia 860x with Great Northern Sound Company Reference Modifcations to directly feed my Electrocompaniet AW 220 Monoblocks (via the balanced outputs) and my Gallo Reference 3 Subwoofer Amplifier (via the RCA outputs). Many audiophiles with systems two or three times as expensive are amazed by the transparency and fidelity of the music presented in our living room.

We use the Wadia's Digital inputs to select one of my modded SB2 or my DVD player or HDTV cable box as alternate sources.

The Wadia 860x w/ GNSC Ref Mods retails for just under $10K (not what I paid of course.)

The Wadia design eliminates my pre-amp and many expensive runs of interconnects -- and radically improved the transparency and immediacy of the music in our living room. The investment made sense for us when we added up what we saved and what we gained in the process.

Now it appears that the Slim Devices has taken several pages from the Wadia design book. It may be able to do all of this and more for just under $2K.

When we see what features and functions lay hidden beneath the aluminum skin of the new SD Transporter we may be pleasantly surprised by the SD Transporter's value for dollar.

Clearly this is an entry level Audiophile price point. If the design and build are as clean and clever as Slim Devices previous generations of Consumer Electronics devices, the game of HiFi / Audiophile music and Network Music Players may have just changed, big time.

Personally, I look forward to seeing how close the SD Transporter comes to our Wadia 860x w/ GNSC Reference Mods, in features and in fidelity, when placed in our system here.

So far, both my Red Wine Audio and Bolder modded Squeezebox 2s are quite good but not nearly as transparent as the Wadia 860x.

I look forward to seeing what we hear on September 18, 2006

/Daniel

awetmore
2006-07-24, 16:11
I like the form factor and the front panel buttons and knob. I don't need the three power supplies, gold plated circuit board, and other audiophile features. I wish there was a $400 version that looked roughly like this with a knob and buttons and a single display.

tomsi42
2006-07-24, 16:15
Reading this makes me feel like I've been bashing the $1999 price. I don't mean to.

My answer wasn't meant that way, so don't feel bad.

It does seem an appropriate price for what is being offered. It
just makes me wish I had more money! :)

There are a lot of us who wish that tonight!

LHawes
2006-07-24, 16:16
I do not consider myself an audiophile, nor would anyone else, but I REALLY like the decision. To my mind it heralds a completely new paradigm in digital music presentation as did the SB1/2/3. I think there is no stopping the possibilities and hope that Slim Devices sucseed in their endeavor.

The price point is too high for my and any more music fidelity or tranparency (a term of which I know nothing about) would be wasted on my untrained ears. But for the audiophiles this tansporter could be a boon if it hits the mark or a complete bust, if it does not.

If it only sounds 'really good' then those who would not pay the asking price will never get to see if it fits their tastes and systems. If it sounds 'audiophile excellent' then IMHO the game changes over night.

Then even those of us who don't think they will ever need such a device now have a 'go to' device from a trusted company if we ever want to pretend we're audiophiles.

Most of all I appreciate the cajones it takes to introduce such a product.

Best of luck Slim Devices I will root for the transporter to be a smashing success.

Michaelwagner
2006-07-24, 16:16
It just makes me wish I had more money! :)
Me too. Maybe groups of us can timeshare ...

shabbs
2006-07-24, 16:27
I do not consider myself an audiophile, nor would anyone else, but I REALLY like the decision. To my mind it heralds a completely new paradigm in digital music presentation as did the SB1/2/3. I think there is no stopping the possibilities and hope that Slim Devices sucseed in their endeavor.
I agree. This device looks great and it sounds like it will address the audiophile's needs out there with what they've put in the box. It's beyond my price point but it sounds about right for the audiophile niche market. Kudos to Slim Devices for listening to their fans and delivering. Good luck with this product - we'll all be watching closely. Hopefully this will help take Slim to yet another next level.

Is there anything out there that would compete with this product?

Cheers.

twylie
2006-07-24, 16:58
For me, this is an easy decision (assuming it sounds as good as I expect it to):

Step 1: order Transporter bundle = -$1999
Step 2: sell Balanced Theta Miles CDP = + $1000
Step 3: sell current wireless SB3 and linear power supply = + $250
Step 4: sell gratis SB3 = + $275

Final cost should be less than $500 for the upgrade. I can easily get that through "purchasing" since it will remove one piece of electronic gear from the house!

Big thanks to Sean and gang for taking this chance and resetting the bar once again.

This will be my 8th slimdevices "device" (SliMP3, SB1G, SB2, 4*SB3 already in the house or on loan to friends/family) and i continue to evangelize for you every chance I get.

-twylie

tamanaco
2006-07-24, 17:16
NICE!... Congratulations Slim Devices. This is far beyond my WAF. I would have a hell of a hard time convincing my wife to drop 2K for something like this. I just got approval to spend 1.5K on a silent HTPC with RAID to run Slimserver. No way! she'll fall for this... Well, maybe if I show her the picture of this baby after mix a couple cocktails and I vacuum the whole place... even under the furniture :-)

Just a thought...
I still have to say that SD needs to work on the remote control. That's one of the features that makes the Sonos so appealing. If Slim Devices came up with a Wi-Fi remote with a graphic interface for the SB family of players that could also act as Universal IR remote for all my other AV components... I could convince the wife to allow me to drop another $300. (I already have a $200 approval for a Harmony 880) I know that remotes are not SD's forte, but maybe if SD outsource the remote to a 3rd party. Or partnered with a company like Logitech (Harmony) to provide a SB specific Universal remote similar to the one Logitec makes for the Xbox.
End of thought...

Nostromo
2006-07-24, 17:31
*drool* What a beauty! The designers did a great job! Unfortunately, its way out of my price range. :( Any chance an upcoming Squeezbox 4 will inherit some of this, like the new form factor, new remote?

stuorguk
2006-07-24, 17:39
Looks great. Bit too pricey for me :( Would have been nice to have had a wheel on the remote (like a mouse wheel). Maybe Slim could develop a new remote for new and exiting SB owners.

Stuart.

Music Machine
2006-07-24, 17:54
Congrats SLIM DEVICES. It certainly looks the part!

If the Transporter comes close to offering the same price/performance ratio as it's predecessors it has the potential to be a roaring success.

I have no issues personally with Slim Server (except album art sort, and that's another topic), but the market for higher end stereo products might not have the required geek quotient that the current product enjoys. SS needs work.

The Transporter is the next big step of the paradigm shift in the way music lovers use music.

Go SD!

chaz
2006-07-24, 17:57
One thing I'd love to see is video out for some sort of on screen display.....tucked in the rack with their metal mesh doors closed the display on this might be a bit hard to read.......not a problem with the SB3 since it just sits on top of the cabinet in plain site.

Looks great though!

akwok
2006-07-24, 18:30
Correct - this is a discount/bonus for those who pre-order. SRP is $1999.

So it won't be $1700 in the future? :(

-Adrian

Michaelwagner
2006-07-24, 18:41
No one has brought this up so far so I'll be daring.

What's with the name?

It sounds so ... I don't know ... Star Trek-ish!

yc_
2006-07-24, 18:56
One product development cycle is for the mfg to release a 'no-holds barred' statement product first at a high price to show what the mfg is capable of.

After getting rave reviews, it can then release a slightly cheaper model that still manages to get 90% of the performance of the statement product. But the cheaper product will not have balanced outputs to distinguish it from the high end product.

Now doesn't that sound familiar... :)

At $1999, I am still not convinced to give up an SB3+Benchmark DAC combo for it (similar pricing and has a Headphone Amp - where's the headphone amp on the transporter....) Still, a statement product like this is necessary to break into audiophile territory, such a product is likely to be covered by the audiophile press who will no doubt compare the Transporter to their $10,000 CD players, which is why the Transporter has to be a statement product by Slim Devices.

shabbs
2006-07-24, 19:01
No one has brought this up so far so I'll be daring.

What's with the name?

It sounds so ... I don't know ... Star Trek-ish!
True. Would something like the SD-1000 have been more in line with audiophiles' preferred naming conventions? Or would that have been too geeky?

Cheers.

pm314
2006-07-24, 19:26
I'm a current SB3 owner and would love to buy a **TRANSPORTER** (read w/ deep voice and echo :) but why would I preorder and only get another SB3 free? Then I would have 2 SB3 and a **TRANSPORTER**. Not that this is a terrible thing because I use it all of the time, but I really dont need that many and would end up trying to resell at least one. Is there any other discount for current owners? Even $150 off might sway the decision some......

Overall, I think this is a great direction and hope Slim Devices continues to broaden their product offerings. I've been both barely able to afford the SB (had it existed) and now able to consider the Transporter (if I continue to drive my '97) and would guess there is a very broad market out there for these types of products. Great work SD team!

rupped
2006-07-24, 19:29
This person has the exact same thought process as me (is it a sickness?)...

Step 1: Same
Step 2: Sell Aud. Illusions Mod. 3A Pre $1,000
Step 3: Sell Rega Planet CDP $200
Step 4: Sell Link DAC III w/upsampling $300

I couldn't bring myself to sell my SB2, the power supply or the new SB3, so I'm out $500.

Anybody want a mint tube pre amp???

This is not going to be easy...


For me, this is an easy decision (assuming it sounds as good as I expect it to):

Step 1: order Transporter bundle = -$1999
Step 2: sell Balanced Theta Miles CDP = + $1000
Step 3: sell current wireless SB3 and linear power supply = + $250
Step 4: sell gratis SB3 = + $275

Final cost should be less than $500 for the upgrade. I can easily get that through "purchasing" since it will remove one piece of electronic gear from the house!

Big thanks to Sean and gang for taking this chance and resetting the bar once again.


-twylie

Mark Lanctot
2006-07-24, 19:38
I joined the SB world as a reviewer so I received the pre-press release the same time the websites did. Unlike those sites (Jez take note!), I followed the instructions and waited for the SB website to be updated at 3 PM PDT. So I was sitting on this all afternoon and barely able to contain myself from gushing about it right here.

They've listened to nearly every single feature I've seen requested:

- rack mount
- knob on the front (yes, the magical and lamented Audiotron/popcorn knob!)
- controls on the front
- better remote
- balanced outputs
- better power regulation/supply

In addition there are a few things that are a surprise:

- TWO displays - wonder how they work? Can't be two independent Now Playing screens. May lead to new visualizers as having Now Playing on one screen with a spectrum analyzer on the other looks cool but may not be truly informative to the audiophile. Audiophiles may be more interested in some sort of multi-line technical readout, i.e. wireless strength, buffer status, etc. I kind of suspect that the second screen was added for visual symmetry to offset the knob in the centre.
- digital INPUTS, including BNC and balanced! INPUTS, so the unit can act as a DAC too...
- BNC and balanced digital outputs in addition to optical/coax
- external word clock input
- an even better DAC
- integrated IR repeater
- RS232 port (never thought about that)
- two external antennas to address wireless strength issues
- "full 54 Mbps bandwidth PCI wireless interface"

I don't think SlimServer can currently accommodate 96 kHz FLACs so modifications are coming.

I wonder if this means any new capabilities for the SB3? Maybe yes, maybe no - the Transporter doesn't have the same CPU as the SB3. The specs for the Transporter list a 325 MIPS, 8-way multithreaded processor. The Ubicom 3023 in the SB3 is listed as 250 MIPS at 250 MHz. The top-of-the-line Ubicom StreamEngine 5170 tops out at 270 MIPS and is 10-way multithreaded. So either Slim is no longer using a Ubicom processor or they've overclocked a 3023. :-) Either way, the hardware is more capable and would be able to do things the SB3 might not be able to do at some point in time, so there could be different functional feature sets, much like the SB1 versus the SB2/3.

The unit must have fairly extensive firmware, getting away from the "slim device" approach somewhat. The digital input functionality and dual screens must be controlled by firmware, no? It would definitely have different firmware than the SB3 due to its feature set.

I get the impression SS 6.5 is being groomed specifically for it. Development on 6.3.x has slowed and most of the work is aimed at 6.5.

Another cool touch:

"The company will begin shipping the product on September 18, 2006 and will accept pre-orders until then. Any order placed before the ship date will receive a free Squeezebox, an ideal solution for customers who wish to listen to their digital music in more than one room."

So users have something to play with and can get SlimServer up and running. They'll get a feel for the system and have a chance get their music library in order. When they get their Transporter, they can use the SB3 in another room.

Sounds like Slim has a winner on their hands! Congratulations to Slim Devices! This is a no-holds-barred, the-sky's-the-limit kind of device. It ought to trounce competitors like Olive Musica, who should be very nervous right about now - remember, Slim invented this market. People who are shocked that the SB3 costs $299 will complain about the $1999 price, but they aren't the target market and audiophiles tend to spend this kind of money on CDPs anyway - sometimes much, much more.

Now the term "Transporter" is awfully long to type so it won't be long before people start abbreviating it. Let's come up with a suitable abbreviation right here... TP? Too much like "toilet paper". TR? Maybe, but not intuitive enough. Tporter? Not enough of an abbreviation.

Personally I won't be able to afford the thing for 2 years at least, maybe longer. Plus the rest of my current system just wouldn't do it justice.

stinkingpig
2006-07-24, 19:49
On 7/24/06, bklaas <bklaas.2bh29z1153782001 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Michaelwagner Wrote:
> > Your 2 year old likes Beck?
> >
> > As in Jeff Beck?
> >
> > Or is there another Beck that appeals to 2 year olds?
>
> no no, the other Beck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beck#Discography).
> She literally goes nuts when Que Onda Guero comes over the squeezebox.
>
>
My kids like Beck too, FWIW. I'm also not a target market type for this
device, these days a car option would get my money in a heartbeat and a
boombox would get it in two or three. Still, it's a great move for the
company to claim the high-end market.

--
"I spent all me tin with the ladies drinking gin,
So across the Western ocean I must wander" -- traditional

stinkingpig
2006-07-24, 19:51
On 7/24/06, Jack Coates <jack (AT) monkeynoodle (DOT) org> wrote:
>
> On 7/24/06, bklaas <bklaas.2bh29z1153782001 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Michaelwagner Wrote:
> > > Your 2 year old likes Beck?
> > >
> > > As in Jeff Beck?
> > >
> > > Or is there another Beck that appeals to 2 year olds?
> >
> > no no, the other Beck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beck#Discography).
> > She literally goes nuts when Que Onda Guero comes over the squeezebox.
> >
> >
> My kids like Beck too, FWIW. I'm also not a target market type for this
> device, these days a car option would get my money in a heartbeat and a
> boombox would get it in two or three. Still, it's a great move for the
> company to claim the high-end market.
>
> --
> "I spent all me tin with the ladies drinking gin,
> So across the Western ocean I must wander" -- traditional
>


Wow, just went and looked at the picture, that thing is GORGEOUS. Still
ain't buying it, but it's really a beauty. Congratulations!
--
"I spent all me tin with the ladies drinking gin,
So across the Western ocean I must wander" -- traditional

peecee
2006-07-24, 19:53
Does anyone have a picture of the old rack mount design we all came up with about a year ago? From the cobwebs in my brain, I seem to think this is very close to what we said we wanted, almost to a tee.

I'd mortgage my house to buy a couple of these. Actually, I'm going through that process right now, maybe I'll see if I can get the adjuster to add on enough for two Transporters. Audiophile quality is expensive, but this looks to be a home run for slim devices. Hopefully they'll sell enough to justify more without interrupting progress to a sb4!

Jacob Potter
2006-07-24, 19:55
On 7/24/06, Mark Lanctot
<Mark.Lanctot.2bhcgn1153795201 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
> I wonder if this means any new capabilities for the SB3? Maybe yes,
> maybe no - the Transporter doesn't have the same CPU as the SB3. The
> specs for the Transporter list a 325 MIPS, 8-way multithreaded
> processor. The Ubicom 3023 in the SB3 is listed as 250 MIPS at 250
> MHz. The top-of-the-line Ubicom StreamEngine 5170 tops out at 270 MIPS
> and is 10-way multithreaded.

I remember seeing somewhere that there was a 325 MHz IP3k chip. That's
probably what they're using. In any case, the RAM and Flash are the
same, so there's not that much difference between SB2/3 and
Transporter.

> The unit must have fairly extensive firmware, getting away from the
> "slim device" approach somewhat. The digital input functionality and
> dual screens must be controlled by firmware, no? It would definitely
> have different firmware than the SB3 due to its feature set.

The SB2 isn't really "slim" either - multiple decoders and
visualizers, direct streaming, DNS (Squeezenetwork in general), and so
on. Gone are the days of a pure-assembler firmware :)

- Jacob

seanadams
2006-07-24, 19:59
I followed the instructions and waited for the SB website to be updated at 3 PM PDT.

Appreciated.



- knob on the front (yes, the magical and lamented Audiotron/popcorn knob!)


It ain't no Audiotron knob! The knob has tactile feedback which changes dynamically as you move through the UI. We will add some more info to the web site soon...


the Transporter doesn't have the same CPU as the SB3. The specs for the Transporter list a 325 MIPS, 8-way multithreaded processor. The Ubicom 3023 in the SB3 is listed as 250 MIPS at 250 MHz. The top-of-the-line Ubicom StreamEngine 5170 tops out at 270 MIPS and is 10-way multithreaded. So either Slim is no longer using a Ubicom processor or they've overclocked a 3023.

It's the same architecture (ip3023) but running at 325MHz - I believe we're the only ones using it as yet.



:-) Either way, the hardware is more capable and would be able to do things the SB3 might not be able to do at some point in time, so there could be different functional feature sets, much like the SB1 versus the SB2/3.


Fundamental software feature differences depending on CPU speed are not planned. The additional cycles are only for driving the new hardware (2nd display, larger visualizer, 96khz etc).



The unit must have fairly extensive firmware, getting away from the "slim device" approach somewhat. The digital input functionality and dual screens must be controlled by firmware, no? It would definitely have different firmware than the SB3 due to its feature set.

Yes, they are different firmware images, but built from the same code tree. The only new "non-slim" feature will be the ability for it to act as a standalone DAC in the absence of any network connection.



I get the impression SS 6.5 is being groomed specifically for it. Development on 6.3.x has slowed and most of the work is aimed at 6.5.

Yes, but there is much more non-transporter stuff coming in 6.5 too, and there may even be a surprise or two. ;)

Skunk
2006-07-24, 20:03
Now the term "Transporter" is awfully long to type so it won't be long before people start abbreviating it. Let's come up with a suitable abbreviation right here...

Tx

It's $2,000 and I can't drive it?

kdf
2006-07-24, 20:04
On 24-Jul-06, at 7:38 PM, Mark Lanctot wrote:
>
> Now the term "Transporter" is awfully long to type so it won't be long
> before people start abbreviating it. Let's come up with a suitable
> abbreviation right here... TP? Too much like "toilet paper". TR?
> Maybe, but not intuitive enough. Tporter? Not enough of an
> abbreviation.
>
trans = X ....XP?? :)

or perhaps TX

dual displays...
how about now playing info alongside vis. I think there are a couple
requests to go back and forth, so why not both at once?
-k

Skunk
2006-07-24, 20:11
or perhaps TX


That's transmit, at least in morse code. I suggested because you always see Tx/Rx for transmitter/receiver in jitter discussions.

My other comment was a joke. I'm sure it's worth every penny....:jealous:

Mark Lanctot
2006-07-24, 20:34
Thanks for the reply Sean.


It ain't no Audiotron knob! The knob has tactile feedback which changes dynamically as you move through the UI. We will add some more info to the web site soon...

I saw that but now it's finally sinking in. Tactile feedback, now that is cool. I guess you'd feel it click through various menu items. Cool indeed.


It's the same architecture (ip3023) but running at 325MHz - I believe we're the only ones using it as yet.

There ya go, overclocking! Although this is probably officially sanctioned by the manufacturer.

Still, it'd pique geek interest to say it's overclocked right from the factory. ;-)


Fundamental software feature differences depending on CPU speed are not planned. The additional cycles are only for driving the new hardware (2nd display, larger visualizer, 96khz etc).

Ah. Good to hear. I saw your response in another thread how 96 kHz for the SB3 is a separate engineering effort and that it's facilitated in the Transporter as the hardware is specifically designed for it.

I don't have 24/96 material anyway.



Yes, but there is much more non-transporter stuff coming in 6.5 too, and there may even be a surprise or two. ;)

I haven't even tried out 6.5 yet but there are lots of people out there commenting on how stable it's getting. I'm getting more and more inclined to try it out.

I should remember, the SB3 is not a discontinued product at all, Transporter will sell beside it for the high-end market, so we can still look forward to new SB2/3 features and fixes.

Jacob Potter
2006-07-24, 20:41
On 7/24/06, Mark Lanctot
<Mark.Lanctot.2bhf0b1153798501 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
> I should remember, the SB3 is not a discontinued product at all,
> Transporter will sell beside it for the high-end market, so we can
> still look forward to new SB2/3 features and fixes.

There's even some experimental work in 6.5 to improve performance /
reduce dropouts on the SB1.


- Jacob

Michaelwagner
2006-07-24, 20:42
Tactile feedback, now that is cool.
I can't wait for the plugin support for that:-)

I'm guessing that if you try to turn the volume up above distortion levels, the knob will fight you for it :-)

EnochLight
2006-07-24, 21:09
Am I the only one that has a major issue with this equipment costing $2000?

I'm all about the new design and hardware, but... all of us knowing how much it costs to build a high-end PC from scratch, even with a quality soundcard and huge flat panel display... I feel that $2K is killing off a huge amount of potential buyers.

If this thing cost $500, or even just under $1000 - I *MIGHT* be able to justify it. But $2000 is a SH@TLOAD of cash for one audio component. I dare to say most audiophiles don't make the kind of cash necessary to afford such a device.

But whatever; I'm sure all of those out there who have $2K to blow are slapping their plastic down and laughing at my post.

*shrugs*

I'll have to keep enjoying my SB3 for now. Good luck Sean!

pfarrell
2006-07-24, 21:21
EnochLight wrote:
> Am I the only one that has a major issue with this equipment costing
> $2000?
>
> I'm all about the new design and hardware, but... all of us knowing how
> much it costs to build a high-end PC from scratch, even with a quality
> soundcard and huge flat panel display... I feel that $2K is killing off
> a huge amount of potential buyers.

Not at all. It is aimed at "audiophiles" and they regularly
spend unimaginable amounts of money.

The Audiophile magazines regularly review turntables that cost
$10,000, and a favorite costs $75,000.

You're just not the target market.

You can't seriously talk about "high-end PC" and serious audio
in the same breath. As a minimum, serious audio requires
that the DAC be outside the PC chassis, PCs are terrible
places for quality analog stuff. See all the "pro audio"
gear that uses outboard chassis for their DAC and ADC.
Inside the PC with digital is fine, but analog has no
business inside with all the RF.

--
-- toc
toc (AT) curmudgeon4 (DOT) us
http://www.curmudgeon4.us/

mherger
2006-07-24, 21:25
> Now the term "Transporter" is awfully long to type so it won't be long
> before people start abbreviating it. Let's come up with a suitable
> abbreviation right here...

Model T? Hmm... was once used for "... the first affordable automobile".

--

Michael

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

Music Machine
2006-07-24, 21:34
Am I the only one that has a major issue with this equipment costing $2000?
...

If the product lives up to the promise, $2000 represents a new paradigm in component engineering, and will rock the audiophile world, where some pepole pay $50K for cd players.

This could cause a revolution from the top down. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out over the next year.

Pale Blue Ego
2006-07-24, 21:59
I am also very interested in seeing how this flies with the high-end community. I think this could be the machine that pushes computer audio into the audiophile mainstream. I can visualize a high % of demo rooms at high-end shows employing this as a front end, and Slim may gain a lot of audio specialty shops as brick-and-mortar dealerships.

In fact, there could be a niche career for experienced Squeezebox nerds to become Transporter consultants, helping more traditional (stuffy, older, non-geek) audiophiles get up to speed with the intricacies of file formats, networking, ripping and tagging, server hardware, etc.

I also think the 24/96 capability will be a feature that is highly-regarded in the audiophile community. A lot of people are doing recording and mastering at those bitrates, and a consumer-level machine that easily handles those files will be welcomed.

qirex
2006-07-24, 22:17
Honestly I'm glad to see this if only because it will help move digital audio into a realm that has snubbed it for years. I honestly believe that the Squeezebox has the sound quality of a real audiophile device but there are people in the world who turn up their noses at anything [even cables] costing under a grand.

I'm also glad to see it for the health of Slim Devices as a company, I think this could do pretty well and while I'll avoid snarky comments about it I imagine the margins on the Transporter are a great deal deal better than the Squeezebox [probably greater than the Squeezebox's retail price]. And if unit sales get good maybe we'll see some trickle down of features like the knob and buttons to the "low end" model.

Good job guys, I'm not buying one but I hope a lot of folks do.

jtfields
2006-07-24, 22:55
Congratulations on the new product. While excited, I also fall into the category of the guys who would need to take out a second mortgage to buy it. :(

Funny thing, when I was reading about it before I saw the price I was thinking "man, I bet this thing cost $800." :)

I've always wished for a Squeezebox with the controls and displays this thing has. I'm not an audiophile so things like a "fully balanced analog stage" never ocurred to me (neither did a $2,000 price tag). I do hope that somewhere down the line they offer a more middle ground product that looks and operates like the Transporter but with more modest internal components (I'm more than happy with the current Squeezebox DAC.) I'm hoping this is just the beginning...

CardinalFang
2006-07-25, 00:56
I am also very interested in seeing how this flies with the high-end community. I think this could be the machine that pushes computer audio into the audiophile mainstream

Me too, but I think those displays are a mistake. Many audiophiles dislike anything other than audio amplification consuming power. I never have visualisations on and I turn off the display a lot of the time simply because they are distracting. When this thing gets a serious review, there will be comments about the sound with the displays on and off. I would have preferred to see no display or a small one and a much better remote with a display, it's more practical, if a little harder to accomplish from the SB3 starting point.

I have to say, I'm not keen on the design, it's too fussy with loads of buttons that will never get used. I have Copland gear that is clean looking and functional and I wish it had been more like that. Overall though I applaud Slim for the product - it's what the market needs and a good move. I hope the server software is vastly improved too.

Paul

agentsmith
2006-07-25, 01:15
I echo similar concerns. While it looks very slick, the multiple buttons and screen dominating the front makes this look less serious than a typical high end device.

Coming from the Naim school of thought......


Me too, but I think those displays are a mistake. Many audiophiles dislike anything other than audio amplification consuming power. I never have visualisations on and I turn off the display a lot of the time simply because they are distracting. When this thing gets a serious review, there will be comments about the sound with the displays on and off. I would have preferred to see no display or a small one and a much better remote with a display, it's more practical, if a little harder to accomplish from the SB3 starting point.

I have to say, I'm not keen on the design, it's too fussy with loads of buttons that will never get used. I have Copland gear that is clean looking and functional and I wish it had been more like that. Overall though I applaud Slim for the product - it's what the market needs and a good move. I hope the server software is vastly improved too.

Paul

325xi
2006-07-25, 01:16
Very good. When is it going to be reviewed by Stereophile? :)
I'm starting saving money... no ice cream for me anymore...

Interesting, if I'd connect it and SB3 to the same outboard DAC, how much difference in SQ should I expect? Beyond the new features, how different the digital section in them?

CardinalFang
2006-07-25, 01:33
I echo similar concerns. While it looks very slick, the multiple buttons and screen dominating the front makes this look less serious than a typical high end device.

Also, I really wish that there was a transport-only option. The price point is fair for what's inside, but a lot of that is unnecessary clutter and stuff that will never get used in my view - I don't need a DAC, two displays, a fancy wheel and all those buttons, what I was hoping for was a clean looking transport with a graphical remote.

I think it will have a tough time against an SB3 plus a $1500 DAC. OK, so you can use the Transport DAC for other inputs, but audiophiles will most likely already have a DAC at this price point.

Thinking about it some more, I'm really disappointed. I'm in the minority I know, but right now, my money would go on a Sonos with a Benchmark or Musical Fidelity DAC for the same price.

Paul

Grumpy_Git
2006-07-25, 02:06
I like the form factor and the front panel buttons and knob. I don't need the three power supplies, gold plated circuit board, and other audiophile features. I wish there was a $400 version that looked roughly like this with a knob and buttons and a single display.


Agreed, thats exactly what i want, maybe with a transformer coupled BNC for spdif and analogue supplies.

One last thing would be to supply that lovely new rotary switch as a geekport device for the SB3

rickwookie
2006-07-25, 02:13
Also, I really wish that there was a transport-only option. The price point is fair for what's inside, but a lot of that is unnecessary clutter and stuff that will never get used in my view - I don't need a DAC, two displays, a fancy wheel and all those buttons, what I was hoping for was a clean looking transport with a graphical remote.

I think it will have a tough time against an SB3 plus a $1500 DAC. OK, so you can use the Transport DAC for other inputs, but audiophiles will most likely already have a DAC at this price point.

Thinking about it some more, I'm really disappointed. I'm in the minority I know, but right now, my money would go on a Sonos with a Benchmark or Musical Fidelity DAC for the same price.

Paul

I don't understand what you mean when you say "transport-only option".
Surely if you don't need a DAC then a squeezebox IS that option. This product is a serious DAC with a squeezebox built in.

As for the whole Sonos thing I don't get the appeal there at all. How does that work if there's more that one person in your house wanting to listen to different music in different rooms? You have to buy several remotes at 319 each or wait and take it in turns? How's the jitter from the Sonos' digital out compared to the '35ps at S/PDIF receiver' quoted for this device?

Anyway back to the "I'm really disappointed", what were you hoping for for in this new product?

Fifer
2006-07-25, 02:24
I think it's an exciting development and I'm seriously considering whether I can justify it or not (a lot depends on the UK pricing). I have to confess to being a wee bit disappointed that the pre-order promo appears to be firmly targeted at new customers only, as most existing customers are more likely to be thinking of selling a previous model rather than acquiring yet another. I've still got a SB1 and my current SB2 and I certainly don't need a SB3 and a transporter to go with them. I totally understand why SD would want to target new customers, but some alternative promotion for those of us who already have SB2s or SB3s wouldn't go amiss surely?

When can we expect to see the transporter reviewed? Have any review models gone out yet?

Can I drive a transporter (why does that make me sound like a truck driver?) with my Nokia 770?

Does this mean 6.5 will be released before 18th September?

ajmitchell
2006-07-25, 02:43
Also, I really wish that there was a transport-only option.

If you don't need the on-board DAC I doubt you will see a signnificant benefit that will justify the outlay - no doubt someone will eventually do a high end SB3 +DAC vs Transporter comparison.......maybe me in 6 months or so!


I was hoping for was a clean looking transport with a graphical remote.

Agreed a graphic remote would be great, but as SONOS already offer this I suppose its easier for slimdevices to look to aftermarket solutions...although admittedly this will always be a compromise.


I think it will have a tough time against an SB3 plus a $1500 DAC.

I am sure your right, and this is exactly what I am thinking about right now (although the Music Fideilty DAC is a cool $4000!]:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?p=123933


OK, so you can use the Transport DAC for other inputs

Are you sure about this? Lets wait for confirmation

The other big issue (already mentioned) is how does it integrate into multi-room with Sb3 etc. If there is no problem here (as I suspect) then bundling the Sb3 for free is a nice sweetener IMHO

Alex

rickwookie
2006-07-25, 02:55
Are you sure about this? Lets wait for confirmation

Alex

I think it says it here

http://www.slimdevices.com/pi_transporter.html

at the end of the paragraph 'Astounding Analog'...

"In addition, Transporter's digital inputs allow its built-in DAC to be used with other sources."

CardinalFang
2006-07-25, 02:55
I don't understand what you mean when you say "transport-only option".
Surely if you don't need a DAC then a squeezebox IS that option. This product is a serious DAC with a squeezebox built in.


Yes, but the SB3 form factor isn't right for me and it doesn't have a linear PSU or professional socketry. I wanted an Audiophile SB3, not a DAC with a squeezebox thrown in. I already have a very good DAC - and it doesn't have all those displays and buttons I don't need and don't want to pay for.



As for the whole Sonos thing I don't get the appeal there at all. How does that work if there's more that one person in your house wanting to listen to different music in different rooms? You have to buy several remotes at 319 each or wait and take it in turns? How's the jitter from the Sonos' digital out compared to the '35ps at S/PDIF receiver' quoted for this device?


No, just the one remote, but I can read it from my sofa and it displays album art, plus it isn't in the same box as the audio components and therefore potentially affecting audio quality. You can argue whether it does or not, but if there was no display in the transporter and instead it was on a remote, then it definitely wouldn't be degrading audio.

If you think you can hear that sort of difference in jitter, then congratulations. It's a lot lower than most highly regarded kit out there and I suspect only a handful of people could reliably detect it. I have no idea what the Sonos jitter is, but I am a Slim customer right now - I have a modded SB2 feeding a Musical Fidelity DAC.



Anyway back to the "I'm really disappointed", what were you hoping for for in this new product?

As I said a clean-looking, uncluttered standard sized audio component with a graphical remote control. The transport would not have a DAC, but would have high grade power supplies, components and socketry. With it I'd want a Sonos-like remote so I can browse music from where I'm sitting without needing binoculars.

I guess I'm no longer in line with where Slim are heading. That's fine, most of you are and the best of luck to Slim, I just don't like this new component. To my mind the aesthetics and features are wrong for the audiophile community.

Paul

rickwookie
2006-07-25, 03:14
it isn't in the same box as the audio components and therefore potentially affecting audio quality. You can argue whether it does or not, but if there was no display in the transporter and instead it was on a remote, then it definitely wouldn't be degrading audio.

I think they've probably gone out of their way to ensure that there is no noise from the display


If you think you can hear that sort of difference in jitter, then congratulations. It's a lot lower than most highly regarded kit out there and I suspect only a handful of people could reliably detect it. I have no idea what the Sonos jitter is, but I am a Slim customer right now - I have a modded SB2 feeding a Musical Fidelity DAC.

Erm, that was my point. There's no way anyone on earth could hear that jitter. I was suggesting therefore that there wasn't possibly going to be any better digital output to any DAC from the Sonos' digital out. But since this was not your reason for prefering a Sonos / High-end DAC combo, more the asthetics / graphic remote, then I guess it's moot.

Since all the circuitry is in effect there in the transporter to achieve the device that you want, and I would imagine exceed performance expectations, I would be surprised if Slim didn't bring an in-between device out that would fit the bill. Surely it would just be a case of 'stripping-out' the bits that you don't need.

CardinalFang
2006-07-25, 03:30
I think they've probably gone out of their way to ensure that there is no noise from the display


I'm sure they have, but the audiophile community is pretty picky about stuff like that and you have to convince them that 2 displays are a good move in a high-end player. Be ready for reviewers who are convinced it sounds better with them turned off, after all these guys have $200 power cords.


Since all the circuitry is in effect there in the transporter to achieve the device that you want, and I would imagine exceed performance expectations, I would be surprised if Slim didn't bring an in-between device out that would fit the bill. Surely it would just be a case of 'stripping-out' the bits that you don't need.

I hope they do, this one has just got too much in it that is irrelevant to the sound quality and merely makes it more expensive.

Paul

325xi
2006-07-25, 03:41
I'm pretty sure SD people got ready for complaints regarding the direction their design is heading - there is no high fidelity device on earth that wouldn't produce at least some negative comments. That's just perfectly normal.

I'm not interested in built-in DAC either, unless it confirmed to match Lavry DA-10 level - and it's not necessarily any worse, we'll see. However I'm not going to reject the device just because they put there something I personally don't need. I consider SD to be pioneers in that area, and kudos to them for that.

Re: jitter. You don't have to have golder ear to hear that. If it's higher then some ns (not ps) it can alter sound so everybody would note it. However it doesn't have to - depends also on the spectrum.

bprager
2006-07-25, 03:43
I love my various SB's and with some effort, have gotten a reasonable WAF. But the one factor that continues to be a problem is the display. As good as it is, (especially compared to other devices), it can't show long album/track names without scrolling.
Yes, I know you can shrink the font, but then distance readability goes to hades quick.
In classical music especially, many albums have the same starting words. Even now, you have to do a lot of scrolling to even pick out the right album and that factor more than anything has prevented me from making the SB's the centerpiece of my whole house system.
When I saw the transporter, the first thing that struck me was - great! - one huge display that could easily display any album/track title known to man, at a highly readable font size. If you wanted VU meters (let's be honest - how many audiophiles will give a damn about cute graphics for the music), you could use part of the display just like the SB's.
At least, you could have had the display for album/track searching, then during playback, use 1/2 of it (programable would have been nice) to show any info you want incl cute graphics if that's your thing.
To split it into 2 displays I think was a major mistake, and missed an incredible opportunity to allow a level of interaction with a digital music library backend that would almost have equaled a seperate PC monitor display.
At the audiophile level, its trivial to run the SB3 thru a better DAC, I've been doing it for years.
But only Slim can improve the display. Until it does, this device doesn't improve enough beyond what I can put together right now.

Simon Still
2006-07-25, 03:49
Congratulations - this isn't for me (theres no way I could drop that much on
a player) but it's a supurb product. With the stable, fast, Slimserver
(lets hope) that is promised by 6.5 this will redefine the market.

I've never been a great fan of the industrial design of the squeezebox in
either incarnation but this looks great. I love the curves on the case edge
and whilst it wouldn't match any of my other kit it is more than any other
the item to put on show. The row of identical buttons along the bottom
don't suggest 'form follows function' has been the design mantra but look
good.

Even the remote looks a cut above (and much more of a match for the SB3 than
the current model - after market upgrade anyone?)

The knob is cool, the twin displays will be full configurable (a new version
of music info screensaver anyone?) and can be switched off for the
minimalist look.

It's a lot of money but not for an audiophile product. Those connections
parts and case will have cost a packet.

Heres hoping for the trickle down product before too long - same case and
controls, standard SB3 parts inside. 300usd ;-) I'll dream on. ...

rick's cafe
2006-07-25, 04:22
Even the remote looks a cut above (and much more of a match for the SB3 than
the current model - after market upgrade anyone?)



Agreed... but can the new remote work with SB3 .. would assume so..

can slim release better pics of the remote .. plus images with the backlit display on

Michaelwagner
2006-07-25, 04:34
Are you sure about this? Lets wait for confirmation
Yes, on the detailed specs page it lists inputs to the dac.

Digital Outputs and Inputs

Optical, coax, BNC, and XLR digital connectors
Word clock input for synchronization with an external clock
Linear-regulated power for all clock paths
Dedicated high-precision crystal oscillators (no PLL, no resampling)
Standard IEC-958 (S/PDIF) or AES/EBU encoding
Optical connector: TOSLINK 660nm
RCA connector: capacitor-coupled 500mVpp into 75 ohms
BNC connector: transformer-coupled, 500mVpp into 75 ohms
XLR connector: 4.7Vpp into 100 ohms
Sample rates: 44.1kHz, 48kHz, 96kHz
Audio format: linear PCM, 16 or 24 bits per sample
Jitter (standard deviation):
11ps at oscillator (intrinsic jitter)
17ps at DAC
35ps at S/PDIF receiver

EnochLight
2006-07-25, 05:00
Not at all. It is aimed at "audiophiles" and they regularly spend unimaginable amounts of money.

The Audiophile magazines regularly review turntables that cost
$10,000, and a favorite costs $75,000.

You're just not the target market.


You got that I right I'm not the target market! ;-) I whole hearedly believe that a $75,000 turntable is ridiculous! Audiophiles or not, spending that kind of cash on a device like that is insane. But hey, I'm sure it'll (Transporter) sell.

Michaelwagner
2006-07-25, 05:09
Face it. We're not the target market. It hurts but it's possible to get past it.

27ph
2006-07-25, 05:16
I think it will have a tough time against an SB3 plus a $1500 DAC. OK, so you can use the Transport DAC for other inputs, but audiophiles will most likely already have a DAC at this price point.

Thinking about it some more, I'm really disappointed. I'm in the minority I know, but right now, my money would go on a Sonos with a Benchmark or Musical Fidelity DAC for the same price.



I second that. If the price follows the SB3 trend this unit will cost around $2700-2800 here in Scandinavia. At this price it would have to beat just about every DAC out there. There are some pretty terrific ones at a much lower price. For me, this is going to be a tough sale.

vH pH

tamanaco
2006-07-25, 05:19
I love my various SB's and with some effort, have gotten a reasonable WAF. But the one factor that continues to be a problem is the display. As good as it is, (especially compared to other devices), it can't show long album/track names without scrolling.
Yes, I know you can shrink the font, but then distance readability goes to hades quick.
In classical music especially, many albums have the same starting words. Even now, you have to do a lot of scrolling to even pick out the right album and that factor more than anything has prevented me from making the SB's the centerpiece of my whole house system.
When I saw the transporter, the first thing that struck me was - great! - one huge display that could easily display any album/track title known to man, at a highly readable font size. If you wanted VU meters (let's be honest - how many audiophiles will give a damn about cute graphics for the music), you could use part of the display just like the SB's.
At least, you could have had the display for album/track searching, then during playback, use 1/2 of it (programable would have been nice) to show any info you want incl cute graphics if that's your thing.
To split it into 2 displays I think was a major mistake, and missed an incredible opportunity to allow a level of interaction with a digital music library backend that would almost have equaled a seperate PC monitor display.
At the audiophile level, its trivial to run the SB3 thru a better DAC, I've been doing it for years.
But only Slim can improve the display. Until it does, this device doesn't improve enough beyond what I can put together right now.

I think that a lot of your display concerns could be better addressed with a graphical remote. You would no longer need to be in front of the SB to read what's playing. As I mentioned before, a Wi-Fi/IR/RF SB Universal remote control would allow you to control not only the SB, but all your AV components. A color LCD on the remote would resolve the distance readibility issues of the VFD that you mentioned. With a remote with graphical interface the Classical Music naming issues go away. You can get album art, lirics or any other album/song info you can think of. Not to mention one's friends Wao! factor when they hear you sing along with Pavoratti in Italian using phonetic lirics being fed to the remote. I'd also like to get thumb wheel a la Ipod to scroll a little more naturaly throught my music library. It can also be implemented to support some of the plug-ins to allow you to create dynamic playlists, display the weather... etc, etc. I want a Wi-Fi/IR/RF SB Universal remote to be the "center piece" of my AV system as it would be only component that'd need to interact from anywhere I sit in my one bedroom NYC apartment. I'm sure it would make the place seem bigger than it really is... I can already see myself sitting in the room with my white throne as I build my new playlist.

Fifer
2006-07-25, 05:21
I want a Wi-Fi/IR/RF SB Universal remote to be the "center piece" of my AV system as it would be only component that'd need to interact from anywhere I sit in my one bedroom NYC apartment. I'm sure it would make the place seem bigger than it really is... I can already see myself sitting in the room with my white throne as I build my new playlist.
Nokia 770?

ModelCitizen
2006-07-25, 05:42
I have no doubt there is a market for this, but one thing is for sure; they will really have to sort out SlimServer. I love it, but it has faults and bugs. Those bugs are annoying with the SB3, but if i had forked out $2000 (plus the other few grand for app/speakers to do it justice) i would be more than annoyed, i would be going absolutly nuts.
I couldn't agree with this more. Now we know that 6.5 is going to be rock solid by September...... and why the increase in quality control personel at SDs.
MC

Marc Sherman
2006-07-25, 05:51
EnochLight wrote:
> Am I the only one that has a major issue with this equipment costing
> $2000?
>
> I'm all about the new design and hardware, but... all of us knowing how
> much it costs to build a high-end PC from scratch, even with a quality
> soundcard and huge flat panel display... I feel that $2K is killing off
> a huge amount of potential buyers.

Obviously, you're nowhere near the target market. I'm not either. I'm
pretty sure SD's marketing department know what they're doing here.

- Marc

Marc Sherman
2006-07-25, 06:08
CardinalFang wrote:
>
> As I said a clean-looking, uncluttered standard sized audio component
> with a graphical remote control. The transport would not have a DAC,
> but would have high grade power supplies, components and socketry. With
> it I'd want a Sonos-like remote so I can browse music from where I'm
> sitting without needing binoculars.

Slim needs to come out with a snap on front plate that locks over top of
the transporters front panel, hiding the displays, buttons, and the
knob. All it needs is a logo painted on and an extension lens for the IR
receiver. Since it's an "audiophile" accessory, they can charge $500 for
it. :)

- Marc

CardinalFang
2006-07-25, 07:47
Slim needs to come out with a snap on front plate that locks over top of
the transporters front panel, hiding the displays, buttons, and the
knob. All it needs is a logo painted on and an extension lens for the IR
receiver. Since it's an "audiophile" accessory, they can charge $500 for
it. :)
- Marc

I've a better idea, I'll just spend my money elsewhere :-)

mschiff
2006-07-25, 08:09
Tx

It's $2,000 and I can't drive it?

Judging by the name, it appears a future firmware update will allow you to use the unit to demolecularize yourself and move to any other user's station where there is a similar transporter unit.

So driving is redundant!

-- Martin

rocky2889
2006-07-25, 08:20
Judging by the name, it appears a future firmware update will allow you to use the unit to demolecularize yourself and move to any other user's station where there is a similar transporter unit.

So driving is redundant!

-- Martin

You are talking a device called "Stargate" that you can travel anywhere in the universal as long there is another similar "Stargate" on the other destination.

Pale Blue Ego
2006-07-25, 09:58
Obviously, you're nowhere near the target market. I'm not either. I'm pretty sure SD's marketing department know what they're doing here.


In the BBC article today, Slim noted that 20% of their customers are audiophiles. It makes a lot of sense for them to cater to this market.

SlimPvC
2006-07-25, 12:05
Obviously, you're nowhere near the target market. I'm not either. I'm
pretty sure SD's marketing department know what they're doing here.


I hope so, too. Also, I hope that this target market will not
become the MAIN market for SlimDevices...
Personally, I do not want to have anything to do with
high-end audio freaks and their multi-$$$ plug&cable policies.

This new Transformer looks great indeed, but it's more than twice the price I'd be willing to consider for a device like this.

So PLEASE do continue to support the poor man's production
line as we are used to! Don't let SlimDevices drift off to the $75.000 record player market!

Peter

SuperQ
2006-07-25, 12:48
Yes, but the SB3 form factor isn't right for me and it doesn't have a linear PSU or professional socketry. I wanted an Audiophile SB3, not a DAC with a squeezebox thrown in. I already have a very good DAC - and it doesn't have all those displays and buttons I don't need and don't want to pay for.


Except that A/B scope comparisons by Sean prove that the linear power supply does nothing to the DAC jitter.

seanadams
2006-07-25, 12:54
Except that A/B scope comparisons by Sean prove that the linear power supply does nothing to the DAC jitter.

I'd say they suggest it strongly but don't prove anything, and even then only in SB3. It is a fact that power supply noise contributes to jitter, but the degree may well be negligible depending on the circumstances.

SuperQ
2006-07-25, 12:58
I'd say they suggest it strongly but don't prove anything, and even then only in SB3. It is a fact that power supply noise contributes to jitter, but the degree may well be negligible depending on the circumstances.

Sorry, I should have just linked to the original post about it:

http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=24392

Secret Squirrel
2006-07-25, 13:11
> Now the term "Transporter" is awfully long to type so it won't be long
> before people start abbreviating it. Let's come up with a suitable
> abbreviation right here...

Model T? Hmm... was once used for "... the first affordable automobile".

--

Michael

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


I LOVE it...can't afford it but I think it's a great leap for SD.

How about the name SBT?

Mark Lanctot
2006-07-25, 13:45
Compared to high-end audio equipment, $2K is a stone-cold bargain, especially with components like that. Ever looked at Linn equipment? Bryston amplifiers? B&W speakers? Even the Denon 5805 and 4806 receivers that everyone seems to have?

Heck, I just got back from an appointment with a dating service today and they wanted to charge me $2500. Hmm, that would be about the cost of the Transporter here in Canada...hmm...I'm not going for that service BTW, nor can I afford the Transporter right now.

Making a flagship product demonstrates engineering prowess, embarrasses the competition, raises the bar for future products and provides a test bed for future trickle-down technologies we can all afford. It can't be anything but positive.

BTW my local dealer is a Sonos rep. I e-mailed him some info about the Transporter today, offering to bring in my SB3 to test out on any equipment they want. No response so far. ;-)

He definitely sells audiophile equipment and I suspect he thinks the SB3 is too downmarket. This is a product he could easily market.

ModelCitizen
2006-07-25, 14:16
Heck, I just got back from an appointment with a dating service today and they wanted to charge me $2500.
If I suggest that you leave your PC and SB and get out more... and it succeeds... will you pay me $2,500?
MC

ModelCitizen
2006-07-25, 14:28
The thing about this audiophile stuff is that you can train yourself to hear perceived imperfections. Your ears become "golden" (sic). It's annoying when you get into it 'cos it's hard to be satisfied. It's very easy to get lost (i.e. extreme detail versus immediately attractive sound etc).
The best hifi I've ever enjoyed was an old music centre in a wooden shack with a large marijuana field just outside. ;-)
MC

Mark Lanctot
2006-07-25, 14:41
If I suggest that you leave your PC and SB and get out more... and it succeeds... will you pay me $2,500?
MC

Ahh...no. :-)

But after my shock at those prices, the Transporter immediately leapt to mind. It's interesting, it didn't look all that much yesterday, but when they ask you that much for something else, it seems like a lot.

Still, as I said, compare with other equipment. It's actually very fairly priced for what you get.

CharlyD
2006-07-25, 14:52
Following is an excerpt from my posting on the Audioholics form, http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24246&page=2.


I think Slim Devices should be commended on releasing a very innovative product. The problem is that the current content distribution methods don't allow the full capabilities of the Transporter to be utilized. The best sound format you can deliver to this box is Red Book CD. Otherwise it's 128kbs MP3 (ugh!). Slim Devices apparently has a relationship with RealNetworks as their Squeezebox and Transporter devices access Rhapsody. I think it would be a killer app for audiophiles if Real (or Urge or iTunes or any other download site out there) to offer high-def sound (at least 24-bit/96kHz x 2ch). I'd even pay double ($2/track) for the priviledge. This service would make products like the Transporter a lot more attractive and could serve to rejuvenate the lackluster high-end industry.

radish
2006-07-25, 16:29
Heck, I just got back from an appointment with a dating service today and they wanted to charge me $2500.
That's a bargain. I thought I was getting the cheap option by only shelling out $20 for a months membership of match.com and now I'm having to find $40k for a wedding! That's 20 transporters! Damn. Time to reevaluate priorities...

Michaelwagner
2006-07-25, 17:16
now I'm having to find $40k for a wedding!
It sounds like congratulations are in order!

Mark Lanctot
2006-07-25, 20:13
That's a bargain. I thought I was getting the cheap option by only shelling out $20 for a months membership of match.com and now I'm having to find $40k for a wedding! That's 20 transporters! Damn. Time to reevaluate priorities...

Yes indeed, congratulations!

But I'm having a hard time understanding how a wedding could cost $40K? So yeah, the Transporter is looking cheaper and cheaper all the time.

funkstar
2006-07-25, 20:39
congratulations radish

but man, i'd struggle** to make myself fork out $40k for a wedding.... do you get a free pony with that? ;)

**I reserve the right to change my mind if a girlfriend was to persuade me otherwise.

radish
2006-07-25, 20:52
Thanks all :) I didn't mean to hijack the thread! But yes, weddings are expensive, particularly when they're in NYC. It's not going to be particularly extravagent in the grand scheme of things, but with 100 people @ $200 a head (plus tax & tip!), a dress, a honeymoon, a photographer, a cake, dinner the night before, breakfast the morning after, flowers, decorations, invites and everything else it all adds up.

However, I am very pleased to be able to confirm the cheesy DJ will be replaced by a laptop & a squeezebox with a bunch of custom playlists. If anyone at SD wants to send me a Transporter I'd be happy to display it prominently and put "sponsored by Slim Devices" on the name cards :)

But the $20 online dating was the best money I ever spent.

Pale Blue Ego
2006-07-25, 20:57
now I'm having to find $40k for a wedding!

Should we tell him? Aah, he'll find out soon enough. LOL

Congrats on finding your Life Partner! Now do the smart thing, elope! Then buy those 20 Transporters! Overwhelm her with WAF!

Fifer
2006-07-26, 00:31
Thanks all :) I didn't mean to hijack the thread! But yes, weddings are expensive, particularly when they're in NYC. It's not going to be particularly extravagent in the grand scheme of things, but with 100 people @ $200 a head (plus tax & tip!), a dress, a honeymoon, a photographer, a cake, dinner the night before, breakfast the morning after, flowers, decorations, invites and everything else it all adds up.
Congratulations radish!

Why not do what we did: registry office wedding, photographer, 20 close friends and family for a meal and a few drinks at a nice restaurant then use the change for a Transporter and system upgrade? (OK, I didn't get away with the last bit, but you might ... ) ;)

Michaelwagner
2006-07-26, 03:29
I am very pleased to be able to confirm the cheesy DJ will be replaced by a laptop & a squeezebox with a bunch of custom playlists.
Hey!

Some of us non-cheesy DJs (who DJ with a laptop and an SB1) object strenuously :-)

radish
2006-07-26, 06:55
Hey!

Some of us non-cheesy DJs (who DJ with a laptop and an SB1) object strenuously :-)
I know. I'm one myself :) But for what we have planned a human just isn't required. What I'm looking at now is how to add an idiot-proof jukebox style browser so people can choose tunes themselves and have them added to the queue.

Michaelwagner
2006-07-26, 08:03
What I'm looking at now is how to add an idiot-proof jukebox style browser so people can choose tunes themselves and have them added to the queue.
Have you looked at Moose? I haven't looked at it in a while but it seemed not bad last I looked.

bobharp
2006-07-26, 08:44
I know. I'm one myself :) But for what we have planned a human just isn't required. What I'm looking at now is how to add an idiot-proof jukebox style browser so people can choose tunes themselves and have them added to the queue.

Congrats radish and congrats to SD on the new product and gaining radishes spouse approval factor (SAF).

shabbs
2006-07-26, 08:50
What I'm looking at now is how to add an idiot-proof jukebox style browser so people can choose tunes themselves and have them added to the queue.
Like a Windows Media Player interface where you can drag songs to the Squeezebox queue?

sfraser
2006-07-26, 08:52
That's a bargain. I thought I was getting the cheap option by only shelling out $20 for a months membership of match.com and now I'm having to find $40k for a wedding! That's 20 transporters! Damn. Time to reevaluate priorities...

Your scaring me man! I proposed two weeks ago, and it is full speed ahead for a 07 wedding! $40K gee-sus H ********


Scott

pfarrell
2006-07-26, 09:17
sfraser wrote:
> radish Wrote:
>
>>That's a bargain. I thought I was getting the cheap option by only
>>shelling out $20 for a months membership of match.com and now I'm
>>having to find $40k for a wedding! That's 20 transporters! Damn. Time
>>to reevaluate priorities...
>
>
> Your scaring me man! I proposed two weeks ago, and it is full speed
> ahead for a 07 wedding! $40K gee-sus H ********

Elope.
Pocket the money.

My wife and I did a very small wedding it only cost $10K or so,
or five Transporters.


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

Pale Blue Ego
2006-07-26, 09:45
I actually got married on my lunch hour, then went back to work. How's that for romance?

Still, it's one of the greatest days of my life; a happy memory, a few cherished photos, and a wonderful life together.

Priceless.

radish
2006-07-26, 12:51
Like a Windows Media Player interface where you can drag songs to the Squeezebox queue?
Something along those lines yes. I used to use Meedio (RIP) on a HTPC and that had a great party mode which allowed you to browse (by name or artwork) and add to the queue, and nothing else. Utterly idiot proof and nice to look at.

shabbs
2006-07-26, 13:19
Something along those lines yes. I used to use Meedio (RIP) on a HTPC and that had a great party mode which allowed you to browse (by name or artwork) and add to the queue, and nothing else. Utterly idiot proof and nice to look at.
It would be cool if WMP could integrate like that and have a "kiosk" mode that only allowed users to modify the songs in the queue.

bklaas
2006-07-26, 13:36
There's absolutely no reason that a skin couldn't be built specifically for kiosk/jukebox mode. In fact, this has me thinking that maybe I'll build it into Touch/Nokia770 as an option.

Basically all it would do is, if jukebox mode is selected (through server settings), remove a bunch of the controls from the UI--player controls plus all shuffle and repeat settings on the 'now playing page', remove the 'play now' button from all browse pages and only leave 'add to queue', remove all of the playlist management controls from the playlist page.

I'm going to add it to my to-do list to explore, it's an intriguing option for parties. Not that I have any parties any more... :(

cheers,
#!/ben

shabbs
2006-07-26, 14:18
Very cool idea. Should you still be able to change the order of the songs in the queue (move up/move down)?

MrSinatra
2006-07-26, 15:00
i wonder what music out there actually takes advantage of a $2k piece of transporting hardware?

i wonder if anyone would bother to take a double blind test b4 forking over that kind of dough?

i've been dating my "other" squeezebox for 5 years, and i'm still blindly testing the waters.

i listen to a lot of older rock, it was recorded b4 digital. not much help there. and remastering can often do more harm than good, (although the hendrix stuff sounds GREAT)

i hope the next SB gets a better remote tho, the current one flat out sucks. u can get the rca lyra for $20 shipped and it has a universal remote that works from anywhere in the house, (radio i assume). backlit would be nice, and a power button that actually cycles power, and a playlists button.

Mitch Harding
2006-07-26, 15:25
I must be the only one who finds the current SB remote to be fine. It does
what it needs to do in order for me to enjoy the SB. Sure, if they made a
souped up remote I might be interested, but I have no complaints with the
existing one.

On 7/26/06, MrSinatra <
MrSinatra.2bkp2b1153951501 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
>
>
> i wonder what music out there actually takes advantage of a $2k piece of
> transporting hardware?
>
> i wonder if anyone would bother to take a double blind test b4 forking
> over that kind of dough?
>
> i've been dating my "other" squeezebox for 5 years, and i'm still
> blindly testing the waters.
>
> i listen to a lot of older rock, it was recorded b4 digital. not much
> help there. and remastering can often do more harm than good,
> (although the hendrix stuff sounds GREAT)
>
> i hope the next SB gets a better remote tho, the current one flat out
> sucks. u can get the rca lyra for $20 shipped and it has a universal
> remote that works from anywhere in the house, (radio i assume).
> backlit would be nice, and a power button that actually cycles power,
> and a playlists button.
>
>
> --
> MrSinatra
>
> www.LION-Radio.org
> Using:
> Squeezebox2 w/SS 6.3.1 - Win XP Pro SP2 - 3.2ghz / 2gig ram
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MrSinatra's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2336
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25771
>
>

Mark Lanctot
2006-07-26, 15:41
I must be the only one who finds the current SB remote to be fine. It does
what it needs to do in order for me to enjoy the SB. Sure, if they made a
souped up remote I might be interested, but I have no complaints with the
existing one.

No, you're not the only one. I find the remote pretty basic but it does the job. I'd rather not pay for an upgraded version especially when it can be replaced with a universal remote so easily.

Outlaw Audio has the same approach - provide the most basic remote that does the job to keep the cost low. If the user wants a better remote, there are multiple universal remotes that will do the job.

I use a Marantz RC1400 that came with my receiver. Works perfectly. For functions that aren't replicated by hard buttons, I programmed 1-1/2 pages of custom items.

Michaelwagner
2006-07-26, 15:48
The first year I had the box, I only ever used the remote to flash the Prom. I kinda forgot it was there. I only ever used the web interface.

Mark Lanctot
2006-07-26, 15:57
The first year I had the box, I only ever used the remote to flash the Prom. I kinda forgot it was there. I only ever used the web interface.

Now that I think about it, between my SB2 and my SB3, I only use one remote. I used the first remote to program the universal and continue to use it with the SB2 but I've never used the second remote.

The unused one still has the faceplate protector on it.

Michaelwagner
2006-07-26, 16:53
I bought one white SB3.

About 6 months later I noticed, on the picture on the web site, that the white SB3 comes with a white remote. Sure enough, I looked in the box, there it was unused. I'd never noticed it was white. Never took it out of the box.

Saved on batteries, I guess.

Pale Blue Ego
2006-07-26, 17:41
I think the current remote is fine. I know it so well I use it in total darkness with no problems. It's an extension of my hand, actually.

tamanaco
2006-07-27, 12:12
I also think the current remote is fine basic remote. What I have been looking for is an improvement on the basic. If you're using a Universal Remote instead of the SB remote then you paid for a remote that you're not using. (Believe me, SD factored their cost of the remote in the final price of the SB)

Most hardware manufacturers price their products based on a single set of "basic accessories" bundled with their gadgets. Lately, some manufacturers are providing different bundles with "enhanced accessories" at higher prices. This allows them to cast a wider net. You want basic; buy the basic... you want enhanced... ____ (fill the blank) Look at the Xbox. You can buy either the basic or the premium package. Incomplete toys are good source of profits. SD can get revenue from licensing the SD logo to a specialized remote control manufacturer. Look at the iPod accessories market... I know... a big stretch.

This is what I'd like to see from SD. The remote does not have to be manufactured by SD or branded SD. (I don't know if SD makes their remote or if it's re-branded) I believe that SD or someone else can develop a Wi-Fi remote with a color LCD for the SB/Transporter family that works like an MP3 player. I want to walk around the house and select the song(s) I want without having to walk up to the SB. I admit it... I'm almost 50 years old and I can't see too well. But even at this late age I have come to enjoy the ease with which I can navigate a large music library from an MP3 player. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. The technology to get this done is all there. To me the icing on the cake would be if SD bundled an enhanced Wi-Fi MP3-like remote that could also act as a Universal IR/RF remote. I'd gladly pay the premium.

Currently, to solve my remote problems, I'm going to spend more money buying someone else's remote. I'm looking to get a Logitech 880 and so the money spent under the table on the SD remote was wasted. Oh, I forgot... I might need it to update the firmware.

Ben Sandee
2006-07-27, 12:51
On 7/27/06, tamanaco <tamanaco.2bmbuz1154027701 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
wrote:
>
>
> I also think the current remote is fine basic remote. What I have been
> looking for is an improvement on the basic. If you're using a Universal
> Remote instead of the SB remote then you paid for a remote that you're
> not using. (Believe me, SD factored their cost of the remote in the
> final price of the SB)


What, like $1? Seriously, that remote control does impact the price of a SB
very much at all.

Ben

tamanaco
2006-07-27, 14:00
What, like $1? Seriously, that remote control does impact the price of a SB
very much at all. Ben

Using "real" cost analogy... for any of digital circuit components that makes up the SB3... not many of the components add up to impact the price of the SB that much either. Regardless of the components cost, I think the issue being discussed is about the possibility of a "future" remote. A remote that can enhance the usabiltiy of the SB by providing a more natural way of navigating a large music library while allowing you to control the rest of your AV system.

In other words... I would like a remote to control the music comming out of my AV system while I lay down on the couch without having to turn my head and squint to look at what's playing or what I want to play next in the SB3. I also don't want to get up to pick up another remote. Yep... I'm old and lazy too.

Ben Sandee
2006-07-27, 14:13
On 7/27/06, tamanaco <tamanaco.2bmgyb1154034301 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Ben Sandee Wrote:
> > What, like $1? Seriously, that remote control does impact the price of
> > a SB
> > very much at all. Ben
>
> Using "real" cost analogy... for any of digital circuit components that
> makes up the SB3... not many of the components add up to impact the
> price of the SB that much either. Regardless of the components cost, I
> think the issue being discussed is about the possibility of a "future"
> remote. A remote that can enhance the usabiltiy of the SB by providing
> a more natural way of navigating a large music library while allowing
> you to control the rest of your AV system.


I was responding specifically to your point that people are somehow throwing
money down the toilet by being forced to buy a sub-par remote. The truth is
that if SD added a higher end remote, people *would* need to pay for it
(even if it were optional). However, the current remote is so cheap that
you wouldn't see any appreciable price drop if it were dropped off the
bundle.

I'm not arguing that there isn't a market for a more advanced remote but I
think that if SD were to offer it, it would make the most sense to offer
this as a sensibly-priced add-on product rather than creating different SB3
bundles with different remotes. That way all of their existing customers
can take advantage of it as well and not feel like they wasted their money
"buying" a $1 remote that they no longer need.

Ben

autopilot
2006-07-27, 14:23
You can argue all you like about DAC's, remotes and power suplies, but what will really make or break this product is Slimserver. I dont care what anyone says, it's not looking too hot right now where i am sitting. I have tried so many 6.5's in the last few days and i am starting to lose the will to live. Bad handling of CUE sheets, compilation album issues (Still?!) and i cant even get the last few version i have tried to even start after a reboot.

Audiophles DEMAND robustness and reliablity, most are not PC heads. They like audio equipment and music, not messing with server software. Maybe not all, but most of the ones i know. It may or may not be better than a $10,000 CD play, but CD players just WORK. You plug them in and they work. No silly bugs, constant messing around and solving one problem only to find it caused another.

You will have a hard time selling this to the audiophile without Slimserver being 100% and you will have a big problem on your hands.

Mitch Harding
2006-07-27, 14:27
If you don't care what anyone says, this will be a dull discussion!

On 7/27/06, dangerous_dom <
dangerous_dom.2bmhvn1154035501 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
>
>
> break this product is Slimserver. i dont care what anyone says, it's
> not looking too hot right now. I have tried some many 6.5's in the
>

autopilot
2006-07-27, 14:35
If you don't care what anyone says, this will be a dull discussion!

On 7/27/06, dangerous_dom <
dangerous_dom.2bmhvn1154035501 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
>
>
> break this product is Slimserver. i dont care what anyone says, it's
> not looking too hot right now. I have tried some many 6.5's in the
>

Esspecially with replies like that :P

Anyway, you get my point. Or not it seems?

tamanaco
2006-07-27, 14:40
I was responding specifically to your point that people are somehow throwing
money down the toilet by being forced to buy a sub-par remote. The truth is
that if SD added a higher end remote, people *would* need to pay for it
(even if it were optional). However, the current remote is so cheap that
you wouldn't see any appreciable price drop if it were dropped off the
bundle.


I get your point now... I agree



I'm not arguing that there isn't a market for a more advanced remote but I
think that if SD were to offer it, it would make the most sense to offer
this as a sensibly-priced add-on product rather than creating different SB3
bundles with different remotes. That way all of their existing customers
can take advantage of it as well and not feel like they wasted their money
"buying" a $1 remote that they no longer need.


They can offer the remotes bundled for new users and unbundled for us old folks

Mitch Harding
2006-07-27, 14:43
I agree SS has room for improvement. On the other hand, 6.3 is working fine
for me. I had assumed that 6.5 was still in "beta mode". Given that
Transporter doesn't ship until September, I'd say that 6.5 still has some
time to mature.

I'd prefer to see SS be more of an application than a web app, but I can
understand the OS portability benefits of the current model. I'm on the
fence.

On 7/27/06, dangerous_dom <
dangerous_dom.2bmikn1154036401 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
>
>
> Mitch Harding Wrote:
> > If you don't care what anyone says, this will be a dull discussion!
> >
> > On 7/27/06, dangerous_dom <
> > dangerous_dom.2bmhvn1154035501 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > break this product is Slimserver. i dont care what anyone says, it's
> > > not looking too hot right now. I have tried some many 6.5's in the
> > >
>
> Esspecially with replies like that :P
>
> Anyway, you get my point. Or not it seems?
>
>
> --
> dangerous_dom
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> dangerous_dom's Profile:
> http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1763
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25771
>
>

tamanaco
2006-07-27, 14:55
You can argue all you like about DAC's, remotes and power suplies, but what will really make or break this product is Slimserver.

There are several pieces to this puzzle, but as dangerous_dom mentions, the Slimserver is a "critical" piece. To charge 2K is fine as long as you have a functional system that you can enjoy. The SB3 and Slimserver remind me of my first car. I couldn't afford anything else and so I had to learn to be a bit of a mechanic. Now I can afford and own a new car... it better start when I turn that key! I can live with some of the Slimserver deficiecies because I bought a $249 SB3, but if I bought a Transporter... the Slimserver better Transport.

tomsi42
2006-07-27, 15:03
I'd prefer to see SS be more of an application than a web app, but I can
understand the OS portability benefits of the current model. I'm on the
fence.]

OS Portability is a major issue for many people. So for the server itself, I find the current model find.

Another nice feature of the slimserver design is that it is possible to add different front ends to it.

I will venture a guess that it is a more fancy/sexy/nice frontend that most want. Which isn't slimserver's job...

Tom

Mitch Harding
2006-07-27, 15:06
It may not be SS job, but I do agree that some people may feel entitled to a
slicker UI if they paid $2000 for the player. Whether that is justified or
not is, of course, debatable.

On 7/27/06, tomsi42 <tomsi42.2bmjqb1154037901 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Mitch Harding Wrote:
> >
> > I'd prefer to see SS be more of an application than a web app, but I
> > can
> > understand the OS portability benefits of the current model. I'm on
> > the
> > fence.]
>
> OS Portability is a major issue for many people. So for the server
> itself, I find the current model find.
>
> Another nice feature of the slimserver design is that it is possible to
> add different front ends to it.
>
> I will venture a guess that it is a more fancy/sexy/nice frontend that
> most want. Which isn't slimserver's job...
>
> Tom
>
>
> --
> tomsi42
>
> SB3, Rotel RC-1070/RB-1070, dynaBel Exact, Kimber Kable 4TC and Timbre.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> tomsi42's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2477
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25771
>
>

radish
2006-07-27, 15:12
I agree SS has room for improvement. On the other hand, 6.3 is working fine
for me. I had assumed that 6.5 was still in "beta mode". Given that
Transporter doesn't ship until September, I'd say that 6.5 still has some
time to mature.

6.5 is not even in beta, it's in development. It will break, it will have bugs and it will be unusable for much of the time. If you're using it, well good luck - now you know what to expect. To criticize an application based on a pre-beta dev build of a future version is absurd - but of course people should feel free to criticize (constructively!) the current release (6.3.1) all they like.

tomsi42
2006-07-27, 15:24
It may not be SS job, but I do agree that some people may feel entitled to a
slicker UI if they paid $2000 for the player. Whether that is justified or
not is, of course, debatable.

No problems with that.

I am not sure how to create the slicker UI though. Should it be a fancy remote (like Sonos), a software frontend (like moose, but OS agnostic) or implemented in the player itself ? In an ideal world it would be all of them.

Mitch Harding
2006-07-27, 15:31
Based on how I use my SB3, I'd love a UI that is similar to iTunes or WinAmp
or such, where searching the library and building playlists is easier and
faster. Ideally this would be OS agnostic, and also have a PDA/remote
interface.

In practice, I think this is a tall order. And for me, it's not a
dealbreaker. But I am head-over-heels in love with the SB3, so I am willing
to accept a level of inconvenience with SS. If I was less enamoured of the
SB3, I imagine I would be less tolerant of the rough edges of SS.

On 7/27/06, tomsi42 <tomsi42.2bmknn1154039101 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Mitch Harding Wrote:
> > It may not be SS job, but I do agree that some people may feel entitled
> > to a
> > slicker UI if they paid $2000 for the player. Whether that is
> > justified or
> > not is, of course, debatable.
>
> No problems with that.
>
> I am not sure how to create the slicker UI though. Should it be a fancy
> remote (like Sonos), a software frontend (like moose, but OS agnostic)
> or implemented in the player itself ? In an ideal world it would be all
> of them.
>
>
> --
> tomsi42
>
> SB3, Rotel RC-1070/RB-1070, dynaBel Exact, Kimber Kable 4TC and Timbre.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> tomsi42's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2477
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25771
>
>

tomsi42
2006-07-27, 15:41
Based on how I use my SB3, I'd love a UI that is similar to iTunes or WinAmp
or such, where searching the library and building playlists is easier and
faster. Ideally this would be OS agnostic, and also have a PDA/remote
interface.


Agree.



In practice, I think this is a tall order. And for me, it's not a
dealbreaker. But I am head-over-heels in love with the SB3, so I am willing
to accept a level of inconvenience with SS. If I was less enamoured of the
SB3, I imagine I would be less tolerant of the rough edges of SS.


Agree again. The SB3 is awesome!

mbonsack
2006-07-27, 16:27
6.5 is not even in beta, it's in development. It will break, it will have bugs and it will be unusable for much of the time. If you're using it, well good luck - now you know what to expect. To criticize an application based on a pre-beta dev build of a future version is absurd - but of course people should feel free to criticize (constructively!) the current release (6.3.1) all they like.

From a software development standpoint, then, SS is at extreme risk for not making the Sept 18 deadline. The software should be in beta with only 50 or so days left before release. Though I'm happy with 6.3.x and not using 6.5, from the traffic in these forums it looks like there's *no way* it's ready to enter beta, and a 60-day beta is the absolute minimum I've seen to get a true quality release out the door -- both on software I've worked on and that which I've purchased.

radish
2006-07-27, 21:30
From a software development standpoint, then, SS is at extreme risk for not making the Sept 18 deadline. The software should be in beta with only 50 or so days left before release. Though I'm happy with 6.3.x and not using 6.5, from the traffic in these forums it looks like there's *no way* it's ready to enter beta, and a 60-day beta is the absolute minimum I've seen to get a true quality release out the door -- both on software I've worked on and that which I've purchased.

You can't throw random numbers like that around, they're entirely dependent on the software in question and the team building it. I used to work on an application many orders of magnitude larger and more complex than Slimserver and our entire release cycle was 6 weeks - essentially 3 weeks for dev and 3 for test & fix. Worked well for a number of years. On the other hand, some companies can spend a year or more in public beta and still produce a sub-par end result. Personally, I'm not at all concerned about 6.5 right now (not that it would matter if I were!). They've got a good solid few weeks of dev left, middle of august would be a good time to solidify the feature list and throw out anything not done or looking patchy, a week or so to tie up loose ends and then still 3+ weeks for a solid testing phase. With the level of interaction from tech savvy community members I'd be pretty confident of getting a good result. But I'm not the QA manager :)

snarlydwarf
2006-07-27, 22:11
On the other hand, some companies can spend a year or more in public beta and still produce a sub-par end result.

:: cough :: Vista :: cough ::

kdf
2006-07-27, 22:30
On 27-Jul-06, at 10:11 PM, snarlydwarf wrote:

>
> radish Wrote:
>> On the other hand, some companies can spend a year or more in public
>> beta and still produce a sub-par end result.
>
> :: cough :: Vista :: cough ::
>
just as bad as what ppl are doing here. can't really slag a release
that isn't released.

win95: now THAT was harsh after being the "most tested software ever"
at the time.

win2k finally got something right (well, after SP1)

linux: always a work in progress.

osx: never crashes....except when it does.

life still goes on, except for those who lose the will to live over
minor software issues. I certainly don't
plan to take away a person's right to make that choice.
-kdf

snarlydwarf
2006-07-27, 23:16
Heh, was just a joke, kdf.. the year of testing was just too much of a straight line and Microsoft is always such an easy target. Slimserver even keeps most of the planned features.

But, really it's not like Slimserver is being used to guide the space shuttle... The guessed timeline of Radish sounds very feasible. 6.5 got pretty stable after the Big Merge settled down and it has had lots of tweaking. It's certainly not perfect yet, but it has made a lot of progress and is nearly there.

Midseptember seems very feasible to me. The number of issues that come up depend really a lot on how many people try to install it in the last few days before it is official: I expect most of the issues to be in the install process.

NWP
2006-07-27, 23:19
You can argue all you like about DAC's, remotes and power suplies, but what will really make or break this product is Slimserver. I dont care what anyone says, it's not looking too hot right now where i am sitting. I have tried so many 6.5's in the last few days and i am starting to lose the will to live. Bad handling of CUE sheets, compilation album issues (Still?!) and i cant even get the last few version i have tried to even start after a reboot.


I've been running 6.5 for months now. There are a few features in 6.5 (like the nokia skin and the ability to search shoutcast) that I wouldn't want to be without. I've heard from time to time that there have been some unstable nightly builds, but I must have missed them.

I've also installed it for two other people at different times and have heard no complaints. Perhaps there have been some problems inroduced recently, but I find it hard to believe they are very behind schedule.



i wonder if anyone would bother to take a double blind test b4 forking over that kind of dough?


A double blind test? Isn't that like Kryptonite for Audiophiles?

The new device is definitely out of my price range, but then again the Squeezebox is out of my range. I just recommend them to others and use SlimServer to play music on my stereo through my motherboard's crappy onboard sound.

I wish Slim Devices luck on the Transporter. I am glad to see you expanding your product line.

kdf
2006-07-27, 23:30
On 27-Jul-06, at 11:16 PM, snarlydwarf wrote:

>
> Heh, was just a joke, kdf..
yup...me too

> the year of testing was just too much of a
> straight line and Microsoft is always such an easy target. Slimserver
> even keeps most of the planned features.
>
yeah, but not the only only target.

> But, really it's not like Slimserver is being used to guide the space
> shuttle...

sean did say there were more surprises. after all, with those who are
certain that Transporter will be a flop, there has to be a revenue
stream somehwere.
I heard Bush wants to get to the moon again. They'll need music to
pass the 6 days, surely.

> It's certainly not perfect yet, but it has made a lot of
> progress and is nearly there.
>
Won't be perfect on release either. It would be silly to claim
otherwise. The feature set is more or less frozen already, but that
doesn't mean the feature set is all announced yet. There is a lot to
cover with what is already there.

> Midseptember seems very feasible to me. The number of issues that come
> up depend really a lot on how many people try to install it in the last
> few days before it is official: I expect most of the issues to be in
> the install process.
>
oh yes, tricky issues there. as always with such large scale migration.
Not to mention a much greater number of plugins in the wild that will
need some careful rework in order to convert from 6.3.x to 6.5.
Currently any that are using custom graphics are a sure fire crash. I
hope that authors make the effort to try 6.5 and work out the kinks.
Not good if their all waiting for release. Lots of people willing to
help in the Dev forum for anyone who has questions on the new stuff.
-kdf

autopilot
2006-07-28, 01:43
6.5 is not even in beta, it's in development.

On the download page is says,



# 6.5b1 - This is the latest alpha pre-release (yes, we really mean it) development version of SlimServer.


I thought Aplha was a more advanced stage than beta?

Sorry, my bad.

Then why still use the 'b' prefix?

But the point still remains, that i really think SS will be the making for breaking of the Transporter.

I have tried 6.3.0, 6.3.1, and several versions of 6.5b. Most are 'stable', but with broken features.

I knew i was going to get a little flammig for this, but i hope people understand my frustrations and what i am trying to say. Just imagine the frustation of a Tranporter customer. But i am sorry if i have sounded arrogant, i dont really mean it to be that way. I just want my music libary working properly.

Keep up the good work people, i know you are working like crazy to make this great for everyone. SD cant be faulted in that respect. If anyone could make a product like the Transporter work its SD. I would not trust it with anyone else.

Michaelwagner
2006-07-28, 03:48
Dom:

An alpha release in software is more tentative, more developmental than a beta release.

From the greek letters alpha, beta, gamma, delta.

Corresponding roughly to A, B, C/G, D.

I guess you'd have to say that the "real" release was the gamma.

Delta's are usually small incremental updates to a released base, so like 6.3.1 was to 6.3.

This use of the letter delta probably comes from calculus, where delta is the difference from the previous result, used for improving the accuracy of the next result in an iterative solution.

Marc Sherman
2006-07-28, 05:47
dangerous_dom wrote:
>
> I thought Aplha was a more advanced stage than beta?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_stage

- Marc

radish
2006-07-28, 08:14
But the point still remains, that i really think SS will be the making for breaking of the Transporter.

I have tried 6.3.0, 6.3.1, and several versions of 6.5b. Most are 'stable', but with broken features.

I actually do agree - that the software is key and that with the Transporter SD are going after a different market with different expectations. This is new to them, and I wish them luck, but you're right in that it's going to be a challenge. I just don't see any evidence to call it a failure just yet :)

tamanaco
2006-07-28, 09:00
For us "poor" SB3 owners the Transporter might be a blessing in disguise. SD will be a bit more pressed to improve the quality and reliability of the SS to meet the expectations of the Transporter owners.

autopilot
2006-07-28, 10:40
They should also consider the fact that if they give away an SB3 for use before the Transporter starts shipping, then the person with a transporter on order encounters the problems with 6.3.1 and 6.5b, it could put them off and that 30 refund policy might just start getting used. Which would be a shame indeed.

Masterbaron
2006-07-28, 17:35
Well Alright!!! SD is truly a responsive company - let's focus on the positive...

SD has addressed most of the audiophile Mods..
SD has addressed the long sought-after form factor..
SD had addressed the blessed "knob"..
SD has addressed potential sound quality..dac, ps, etc.

Please consider these facts when you debate the UI and the price.

SD released this product in response to our ideas and needs - what more is there to ask? - do you really think they will let that investment fail behind a UI?

i tend to think things will only get better and I for one believe SD is on the right track - as far as price.. be careful what you ask for? Don't you think they deserve it - especially since they have probably staged they next UI for release by September.

I can't wait - hell, I don't even mind it will retire my latest purchase from them.

They will definitely get my contribution for their responsiveness.

Michaelwagner
2006-07-29, 09:20
I think this man has a valid point.


SD is truly a responsive company

SD has addressed most of the audiophile Mods..
SD has addressed the long sought-after form factor..
SD had addressed the blessed "knob"..
SD has addressed potential sound quality..dac, ps, etc.

rhyzome
2006-08-02, 03:49
I think the SB's plus point was its low price and audioserver bang for the buck given the features. If you start making it an audiophile component from the get go though, the glaring problems with navigation, etc start becoming exposed. The Wheel MAY address some of those issues, but the encoder doesn't fully compensate for the lack of a 10-foot or multiline display, which I think you need to be able to fulfil the purpose of navigation a large library.

I don't doubt the Transporter will work for some, but equally I think a Mac Mini or a silenced MITX machine + RME Fireface 400 will give equally good audio results combined with a higher degree of flexibility - for significantly less money, if the Transporter is $1999. I for one won't be tempted, will be sticking with my Mini + Fireface.

Mark Lanctot
2006-08-02, 06:01
The Wheel MAY address some of those issues, but the encoder doesn't fully compensate for the lack of a 10-foot or multiline display, which I think you need to be able to fulfil the purpose of navigation a large library.

Hmm? I can easily read the display from 15 feet away (and I wear glasses) plus it is a multiline display (2 lines).

Also with the new 2-display Transporter, you may be able to stretch text over both displays, which would make the text width at least as wide as you'd get with a 15" monitor, even a 17" monitor.

Take a helluva lot less real estate and power than a PC too, and even quieter than a "low noise" fan.

Jacob Potter
2006-08-02, 06:56
On 8/2/06, rhyzome
<rhyzome.2bwshb1154515801 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
> I don't doubt the Transporter will work for some, but equally I think a
> Mac Mini or a silenced MITX machine + RME Fireface 400 will give equally
> good audio results combined with a higher degree of flexibility - for
> significantly less money, if the Transporter is $1999.

If it has a hard drive, it's not silent. :)

- Jacob

radish
2006-08-02, 06:58
I think a Mac Mini or a silenced MITX machine + RME Fireface 400 will give equally good audio results
Not a chance. I'm not an audiophile by any stretch of the imagination, but... just... no.

rhyzome
2006-08-02, 13:39
Not a chance. I'm not an audiophile by any stretch of the imagination, but... just... no.

Any reason why?

The output from my Mini + Fireface (800) goes into the dCS Elgar Plus, clocked by the Verona. It gives generally as good a result as I've ever heard out of a transport (including the Verdi La Scala sitting on the top of my stack, which is actually used these days only to play back my SACD's. The Verdi is better but not definitively so as a redbook transport even considering the various manipulations subjected by the dCS hard/software).



Hmm? I can easily read the display from 15 feet away (and I wear glasses) plus it is a multiline display (2 lines).

Also with the new 2-display Transporter, you may be able to stretch text over both displays, which would make the text width at least as wide as you'd get with a 15" monitor, even a 17" monitor.

Take a helluva lot less real estate and power than a PC too, and even quieter than a "low noise" fan.


The two displays are intersected by the knob. You may be able to stretch it, but then you may not. 2 lines is not multiline. It's 2 lines.

As for 15" 17" monitors or whatever, there's this thing called a TV in most people's living rooms, or in my case an ultra-quiet LCD panel. That's what my Mini is hooked up to and I don't have to squint at all to look at that.

I wonder how many of you actually have experience of comparing the two. You know, I sweated for ages trying to silence my PC's. It was rapidly coming to the situation where I was about to throw in the towel. Then I got the Mac Mini and I realised I'd been completely wasting my time with PC's. Mini-ITX solutions I'm told are exceptionally silenceably these days, and many of these systems (including the Mini) run on 2.5" discs (which don't generally whine or whirr much). Noise is generally not an issue with these ultra silent computers. It pays to try lots of things as I've done before you pass judgement. The Transporter is I'm sure a very good option but it really needs more in terms of display and navigation (main and remote) capabilities, and as I said it seems overpriced compared to PC/pro soundcard-based solutions which offer I would say superior flexibility and as I said, audio ability most likely on a par with the Transporter - especially if you're clocking/DACing for maximum results.

I would imagine I'm part of the target market for the Transporter based on my audio expenditure at least. But I see better solutions and some missed opportunities. That's all.

radish
2006-08-02, 13:55
The output from my Mini + Fireface (800) goes into the dCS Elgar Plus, clocked by the Verona. It gives generally as good a result as I've ever heard out of a transport (including the Verdi La Scala sitting on the top of my stack, which is actually used these days only to play back my SACD's. The Verdi is better but not definitively so as a redbook transport even considering the various manipulations subjected by the dCS hard/software).

Of course no-one outside of SD has heard the transporter yet, but the expectation is it will be on a par with the very best transports available. The amount of design and engineering put into (for example) minimising jitter on the SP/DIF far exceeds that in any commodity computer audio device. You say yourself that the La Scala is better than the mini, it's simply my opinion that whilst the mini may well be good enough (and probably would be for me, given the rest of my system) I'd be amazed if it were as good as the Transporter - or even an SB3 to be honest.

Mark Lanctot
2006-08-02, 13:58
As for 15" 17" monitors or whatever, there's this thing called a TV in most people's living rooms, or in my case an ultra-quiet LCD panel. That's what my Mini is hooked up to and I don't have to squint at all to look at that.

I have indeed heard of a TV, thanks for the sarcasm.

IMO it has no place in an audio setup. To have to turn it on every time you just want to listen to music would get old in a hurry.

Jacob Potter
2006-08-02, 14:06
On 8/2/06, radish <radish.2bxkpz1154552401 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
> You say yourself that the La Scala is better
> than the mini, it's simply my opinion that whilst the mini may well be
> -good enough- (and probably would be for me, given the rest of my
> system) I'd be amazed if it were -as good- as the Transporter - or even
> an SB3 to be honest.

Er, I don't think anyone's suggesting the Mini's line output...
rhyzome's using an external Firewire DAC.

- Jacob

mkozlows
2006-08-02, 17:25
I think the SB's plus point was its low price and audioserver bang for the buck given the features. If you start making it an audiophile component from the get go though, the glaring problems with navigation, etc start becoming exposed.

I strongly disagree. I've used Windows Media Center (which is not bad at all), but the Squeezebox UI is much, much better. It's faster, it's less awkward, and it doesn't require a TV.

I don't get people who think the Squeezebox has a bad UI.

radish
2006-08-02, 18:49
On 8/2/06, radish <radish.2bxkpz1154552401 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
> You say yourself that the La Scala is better
> than the mini, it's simply my opinion that whilst the mini may well be
> -good enough- (and probably would be for me, given the rest of my
> system) I'd be amazed if it were -as good- as the Transporter - or even
> an SB3 to be honest.

Er, I don't think anyone's suggesting the Mini's line output...
rhyzome's using an external Firewire DAC.

- Jacob
Well in that case I misunderstood, but that also negates any price difference- the Fireface 800 is $1500 on it's own.

rhyzome
2006-08-03, 00:23
Well in that case I misunderstood, but that also negates any price difference- the Fireface 800 is $1500 on it's own.


The 400 is $1000. In my case, I overspecced as I've standardised on the 800 for all of my Macs. Anyway I'll leave it to you guys, it's pretty clear to me from the comments that many of you don't have experience of an appropriate computer-based system to compare. I've put down the reasons I won't be considering one because I've put together fully configured versions of both Squeezebox and PC / Mac-based systems. To me the Mac-based set-up is currently superior for audio, and based on the specs I expect it to hold its own against the Transporter as a transport, while being far more versatile.

m1abrams
2006-08-03, 05:19
I don't doubt the Transporter will work for some, but equally I think a Mac Mini or a silenced MITX machine + RME Fireface 400 will give equally good audio results combined with a higher degree of flexibility - for significantly less money, if the Transporter is $1999. I for one won't be tempted, will be sticking with my Mini + Fireface.

That RME Fireface 400 runs around $1000 USD, and a Mac Mini is base model is according to the apple store $599 USD

So we are at almost $1600 and the MAC mini has a poorer inteface since the above includes no display device or remote. I also doubt the quality is better than the transporter. Plus the transporter is a single purpose device which is a GOOD thing to many people who just want audio. Another bonus the combo Mini and RME is just not very eye pleasing for the audio rack.

rhyzome
2006-08-06, 06:17
If you don't already own a TV capable of accepting a PC input $400 would get a decent 20" monitor retail - cheaper with rebates, etc. Seen Front Row on 20" monitor (heck, even a 17" monitor)? Blows the snot out of SB visibility / navigability (sic)

My Fireface is mounted around the side of the rack towards the rear as I don't have to see / otherwise manipulate it. The Mini is plenty eye-pleasing on the rack - and it ships with a remote. I'm guessing too as regards the Transporter's ultimate audio abilities but jeez, you guys don't even have any sort of assumption base to even start from. As I said if you've never tried it, you won't know I guess.

Mitch Harding
2006-08-07, 06:52
Well, nobody has tried Transporter yet outside of SD, so of course this is
all speculation.

On 8/6/06, rhyzome <rhyzome.2c4e3b1154870401 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
wrote:
>
>
> If you don't already own a TV capable of accepting a PC input $400 would
> get a decent 20" monitor retail - cheaper with rebates, etc. Seen Front
> Row on 20" monitor (heck, even a 17" monitor)? Blows the snot out of SB
> visibility / navigability (sic)
>
> My Fireface is mounted around the side of the rack towards the rear as
> I don't have to see / otherwise manipulate it. The Mini is plenty
> eye-pleasing on the rack - and it ships with a remote. I'm guessing too
> as regards the Transporter's ultimate audio abilities but jeez, you guys
> don't even have any sort of assumption base to even start from. As I
> said if you've never tried it, you won't know I guess.
>
>
> --
> rhyzome
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> rhyzome's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6370
> View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=25771
>
>

Michaelwagner
2006-08-07, 07:05
Well, nobody has tried Transporter yet outside of SD, so of course this is all speculation.
Right. We can look at pictures and talk about the look, but no one can really say anything about the sound of it so far, or how the two screens will work, together or separately, or any of the other speculation.