PDA

View Full Version : Satellite Squeeze Box



thesil
2007-03-13, 09:47
I am hearing some chatter about a satellite SB that will sell for about $199. This is supposerd to be hush hush , although I don't know why. You can use it if you have your main SB in another room and want to see what's playing on your second system. It sounds like a great idea, and I would love one. Has any one heard about this, and when or if it's coming?

mherger
2007-03-13, 09:50
> I am hearing some chatter about a satellite SB that will sell for about
> $199. This is supposerd to be hush hush , although I don't know why.
> You can use it if you have your main SB in another room and want to see
> what's playing on your second system.

This must be a SliMP3 bought on ebay with Felix' ShadowPlay plugin :-) Do
you have sources?

--

Michael

-----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.herger.net/SlimCD - your SlimServer on a CD
http://www.herger.net/slim - AlbumReview, Biography, MusicInfoSCR

Mark Lanctot
2007-03-13, 10:29
So this device is a playback device, but depends on another SB?

Sounds kind of...odd...if it can network to the first SB, why not network to SlimServer and be done with it?

There have been requests for things a little different than this:

- a headless Squeezebox (no display)

- a...umm..."mouthless" Squeezebox if you will, one with the display but only echoing what's playing on the display. No audio output. A slave display.

Could it be one of these?

Also, keep in mind, April 1st is near. This sounds a lot like SlimDRM: http://www.slimdevices.com/slimdrm.html Music comes in, nothing comes out. Perfect, secure DRM. Uses a fabulous 0-bit DAC.

thesil
2007-03-13, 11:09
yeah, could be a "slave display" . Here is the situation. I originally set up my SB3 downstairs with my home theatre system. I have since purcahsed some high end 2 channel stereo amps and intergrated amp for upstairs listening. the original SB3 is still downstairs and connected to my original system with the digital optical out. It is connected to my new system with the other analog RCA plugs. I control it upstairs with a Gensis MX900 universal remote that works great. Only problem is: I cannot see what is playing upstairs. My audio installer told me about another SB that would let me see what downstairs SB is palying. It seems that it is in the offing, but no one wants to commit to saying that it is coming.

spooley
2007-03-13, 11:26
I was just about to post a question along the same lines regarding a "slave" SB3. My only additional comment is that in addition to just displaying what is on the "master" SB3, the slave should also accept remote functions.

Thesil, my setup is very similar to yours - computer, SB3 and audio components downstairs, speakers upstairs are connected to components downstairs. I can also control the existing SB3 through existing IR extender, but I want/need a display. If the "slave" could accept remote functions then I point the remote at the "slave" rather than at the IR extender.

Wow - I guess that seems a little on the lazy side, but hey if you are going to have a display it woulb be natural to point the remote at it.

A slave would be nice if it came at a reduced cost, but could the current SB3 serve the same function?

snarlydwarf
2007-03-13, 11:27
At $199, it wouldn't seem to be that great a savings especially for something that is a pretty small market.

Why not just use another SB3 plugged into the new amp?

peter
2007-03-13, 11:35
thesil wrote:
> I am hearing some chatter about a satellite SB that will sell for about
> $199. This is supposerd to be hush hush , although I don't know why.
> You can use it if you have your main SB in another room and want to see
> what's playing on your second system. It sounds like a great idea, and I
> would love one. Has any one heard about this, and when or if it's
> coming?
>

So for 2/3 of the price of the real thang, we get a squeezebox with the
audio output removed?
That sounds like a non starter to me...

I'd see more in the reverse: An audio only SB without display for 1/3 of
the price ;)

Regards,
Peter

peter
2007-03-13, 11:37
spooley wrote:
> A slave would be nice if it came at a reduced cost, but could the
> current SB3 serve the same function?
>

Yep, with the shadowplay plugin.

Regards,
Peter

Mark Lanctot
2007-03-13, 11:39
yeah, could be a "slave display" . Here is the situation. I originally set up my SB3 downstairs with my home theatre system. I have since purcahsed some high end 2 channel stereo amps and intergrated amp for upstairs listening. the original SB3 is still downstairs and connected to my original system with the digital optical out. It is connected to my new system with the other analog RCA plugs. I control it upstairs with a Gensis MX900 universal remote that works great. Only problem is: I cannot see what is playing upstairs. My audio installer told me about another SB that would let me see what downstairs SB is palying. It seems that it is in the offing, but no one wants to commit to saying that it is coming.

Oh yes. I remember you asking about this before.

It sounds like your dealer was confused or just wanted to close a sale, because it's a real fringe product. You'd have to have a Squeezebox or Transporter in the first place to justify it, and probably less than 10% of present owners would have a real need for it. Not sure if it would make much sense to manufacture it?

I could be wrong, of course, I don't know what's going on. But it would make much more sense to manufacture something that's been requested for years - upgraded wifi remote with screen, SlimBoomBox/SlimAlarm, or new possibilities based on the Transporter: DACless Transporter, SB-in-a-Transporter-case, etc.

Slim was very tight-lipped about new product announcements. There's no reason to think this will change under Logitech - if anything they'd want to keep it more secret, but on the other hand more people are involved so more opportunity for leaks.

kdf
2007-03-13, 11:42
It seems that it is in the offing, but no one wants to commit to saying that it is coming.

Slim Devices has a policy to never comment on upcoming hardware until it's ready to announce. I wouldn't expect a reply from them on this. Anything you heard can only be taken as speculation. Given the policy, it should be safe to assume that anyone who knows anything for certain is under some sort of non-disclosure.

Slave display idea has come up before and the same issues exist: the bulk of the cost is the VFD, so not much savings to be nad by a non-playing SB* with a display. Not sure if the display alone would match the price drop to 199, but it's all a guess. It is also getting close to April, and there is the history of some interesting announcements come April.

-kdf

snarlydwarf
2007-03-13, 11:48
It is also getting close to April, and there is the history of some interesting announcements come April.

-kdf

Yes, but delivery on products announced in April is right up there with, um, a certain "competitor".

I have waited two years for my Dorku (http://www.slimdevices.com/au_press_dorku.html)

thesil
2007-03-13, 12:58
Spooley, yes, exactley. Use a remote upstairs with the "slave" to control the SB downstairs and see what is being displayed upstairs. I have the RF to IR repeater and it works great; I just don't know what SB will play next, or what playlist I'll get.

As far as the other guys' comments, I don't know if that $199 price is the right price point or not; it may be for some. I'd pay it. Sure, you could buy another SB with shadow play ( of which I am not familiar ), but why pay for the whole enchilada when you don't need it?

I'll wait till April and see what happens. I know someone at Slim Devices knows more than they are letting on

Skunk
2007-03-13, 14:31
Slave display idea has come up before and the same issues exist: the bulk of the cost is the VFD, so not much savings to be nad by a non-playing SB* with a display.

But OTOH, many profits to be had from a TCP>DSP>DAC with no display and slightly modified logic/firmware.

Do firmware updates or other hurdles make the headless Squeezebox a non-starter as well, or can we keep our fingers crossed?

Skunk
2007-03-13, 15:02
But OTOH, many profits to be had from a TCP>DSP>DAC with no display and slightly modified logic/firmware.


I suppose once you consider wireless, the enclosure, connectors, plus assembly and the company picnic fund, it would render the engineering cost of pursuing it not worthwhile.

Inside info would be fascinating, but I mainly wanted to point out that on second thought I doubt it could be offered at 1/3 the price.

y360
2007-03-14, 05:30
Obviously SB4 would be a mass-market Logitech device, which by definition needs to be simple to setup & operate by non-technical customers.

New features would be a sonos-like remote (or a larger display, or a connection to TV display), video streaming, more web-centric music services like pandora & rhapsody, social web 2.0 features, 5.1 audio channels, central firmware repository (similar to cable set top boxes), less reliance on local slimserver

Marc Sherman
2007-03-14, 05:51
y360 wrote:
> Obviously SB4 would be a mass-market Logitech device, which by
> definition needs to be simple to setup & operate by non-technical
> customers.
>
> As such, the "run my own slimserver" is likely to disappear.
>
> New features would be a sonos-like remote (or a larger display), video
> streaming, more web-centric music services like pandora & rhapsody,
> social web 2.0 features, 5.1 audio channels, central firmware
> repository (similar to cable set top boxes).

You're a couple weeks early there.

- Marc

peter
2007-03-14, 11:11
Skunk wrote:
> Skunk;187677 Wrote:
>
>> But OTOH, many profits to be had from a TCP>DSP>DAC with no display and
>> slightly modified logic/firmware.
>>
>>
>
> I suppose once you consider wireless, the enclosure, connectors, plus
> assembly and the company picnic fund, it would render the engineering
> cost of pursuing it not worthwhile.
>
> Inside info would be fascinating, but I mainly wanted to point out that
> on second thought I doubt it could be offered at 1/3 the price.
>

If you consider the almost negligible cost of modern DVD players mass
production could make such a device very cheap. Surely Logitech must be
able to bring the price down?

Regards,
Peter