PDA

View Full Version : A few questions/comments about Transporter



cliveb
2006-08-17, 01:59
The Transporter looks like a very interesting device. I have a few questions/comments:

1. It's not clear from the info published so far whether it will be possible to switch between the digital inputs from the remote. The photo of the remote is just a little too small to be able to read all the buttons' labels.

2. Will the volume control operate on external sources fed via the digital inputs, or does it only operate on the stream arriving from SlimServer?

3. The specs indicate that the selectable attenuation is only available on the unbalanced analogue output. I would like to see this also available on the balanced analogue output - my ATC speakers have balanced inputs and it would make sense to drive them from the balanced outputs, and there would certainly need to be some sort of attenuation to avoid blowing out the windows! Is it too late in the development process to ask for this to be considered?

4. Finally, a comment about the twin displays. I personally would have preferred to see a single double-width display. My eyesight isn't great and I have to use the largest font on the Squeezebox to read it from the listening position (about 12 feet away). A wider display would enable more info to be shown without scrolling. (This is a minor point, and I realise that this aspect of the design is probably set in concrete. For all I know, maybe wider displays simply aren't available?).

kdf
2006-08-17, 08:28
On 17-Aug-06, at 1:59 AM, cliveb wrote:

>
> The Transporter looks like a very interesting device. I have a few
> questions/comments:
>
> 1. It's not clear from the info published so far whether it will be
> possible to switch between the digital inputs from the remote.
there is an option in the settings menu, which you can get to via the
remote or the knob

>

Can't answer the middle two myself.
>
> 4. Finally, a comment about the twin displays. I personally would have
> preferred to see a single double-width display. My eyesight isn't great
> and I have to use the largest font on the Squeezebox to read it from
> the
> listening position (about 12 feet away). A wider display would enable
> more info to be shown without scrolling. (This is a minor point, and I
> realise that this aspect of the design is probably set in concrete. For
> all I know, maybe wider displays simply aren't available?).
>
A wider display is likely more expensive than two of the existing ones
combined. It's a custom display, so probably has a minimum quantity buy
as well.
However, Triode is working on some really great options for the display
code. You can split off the artist/album info to the second display,
show information in three lines. It may be possible, but not yet
implemented and maybe not yet tested, to spread a single line across
two of the displays. Hard part is how to handle text that is too long
for even two displays.
-kdf

Triode
2006-08-17, 08:42
Hum...

Not supported at present, but it would probably be possible to do either of the following:
1) for largest font split the display so top line appears on left screen and bottom line appears on right screen
2) treat both screens as a single screen - not sure how this would look with the gap between the two and knob in the middle though.

dean
2006-08-19, 23:06
On Aug 17, 2006, at 1:59 AM, cliveb wrote:
> 1. It's not clear from the info published so far whether it will be
> possible to switch between the digital inputs from the remote. The
> photo of the remote is just a little too small to be able to read all
> the buttons' labels.
Yes, by navigating to a menu that allows you to choose from the list
of inputs.

> 2. Will the volume control operate on external sources fed via the
> digital inputs, or does it only operate on the stream arriving from
> SlimServer?
Not in the first release, but we hope to add it in a future software
update.


> 3. The specs indicate that the selectable attenuation is only
> available
> on the unbalanced analogue output. I would like to see this also
> available on the balanced analogue output - my ATC speakers have
> balanced inputs and it would make sense to drive them from the
> balanced
> outputs, and there would certainly need to be some sort of attenuation
> to avoid blowing out the windows! Is it too late in the development
> process to ask for this to be considered?
Alas, no, the attenuation is only in the unbalanced outputs. You may
be able to find inline passive attenuators, <http://
www.rothwellaudioproducts.co.uk/html/attenuators.html> for example,
that will work for this application.

cliveb
2006-08-20, 02:26
Dean, thanks for clarifying these issues.



Alas, no, the attenuation is only in the unbalanced outputs. You may
be able to find inline passive attenuators, <http://
www.rothwellaudioproducts.co.uk/html/attenuators.html> for example,
that will work for this application.
69 for a pair of attenuators? Rothwell needs a lesson in value-for-money from Slim Devices! I'll just solder potential dividers into the XLR plugs: 1/4 watt resistors are plenty small enough, and cost pennies.

ted_b
2006-09-12, 10:44
The Transporter looks like a very interesting device. I have a few questions/comments:..........

3. The specs indicate that the selectable attenuation is only available on the unbalanced analogue output. I would like to see this also available on the balanced analogue output - my ATC speakers have balanced inputs and it would make sense to drive them from the balanced outputs, and there would certainly need to be some sort of attenuation to avoid blowing out the windows! Is it too late in the development process to ask for this to be considered?................

s

I own ATC SCM150ASL active pro speakers. I haven't had them long but love them. Why do you suspect that 0db attenuation (i.e none) will be too much gain for the active ATC's (btw, mine have +/- 6db input sensitivity adjustments on the back)? I don't know anything about impedance matches, etc. so I'm really asking in a void. Is the volume control not granular enough to have it turned down low? Thanks,
Ted