PDA

View Full Version : Squeezebox review: Laptop Logic



MrC
2008-01-28, 18:10
Enjoy the read:

http://www.laptoplogic.com/reviews/detail.php?id=190&part=glance

bigfool1956
2008-01-28, 18:47
Nice review, not one mention of how it actually sounds.....

simonsays
2008-01-28, 22:17
I beg to differ as I wrote that review:

Operating everywhere from 20 feet to one and half floors away – the quality of audio was directly related to what the file was set at. Some extremely high bitrate (320kb) started to drop when I tested the unit a floor and a half away, but that’s only because my wireless signal strength was at 47% or so. If you’re walls are thick, you had better hope your network has a repeater or booster on it if you plan on streaming that high of audio that far away.

Testing the unit with compressed and uncompressed audio formats was also ear opening. With an uncompressed WAV file of the exact same track – it clearly sounds much better. The highs were outstanding, and the lows were crisp and clear. The 24bit decoding chip in the Squeezebox does amazing work.

For compressed format was also sounding great – but not as great as the uncompressed (naturally).

Volume output from the device was consistent and was manageable with the receiver and the device. I found that optimal settings of output from the device was around 65%, and adjusting the audio output on my receiver from there proved less frustrating than trying to control two devices with two separate remotes.

edit: just as a note, if you feel I should talk more about this, I will add a subsequent addition. However, I was impressed with the quality and noted that. What you put in, is what you'll get out as I've noted, how much more do i need to elaborate? I would love your feedback either here, or on our forums (admin - I'm not trying to fish traffic, just would like to know what you feel thats all. Thanks)
http://www.laptoplogic.com/reviews/detail.php?id=190&part=glance&page=2

MuckleEck
2008-01-29, 00:54
Interesting review, most of which is about setting up networks, not something I have ever had an issue with at home, I didn't need to open ports on my router or firewalls....unless I was accessing the slimserver from the internet...does everybody lock their firewalls down even on their 192.168.x.x (or other adress) home network?

aubuti
2008-01-29, 01:28
For compressed format was also sounding great but not as great as the uncompressed (naturally).
I'll confess that I haven't read the review yet, but I'll mention that you might want to be more careful with your distinctions here. The issue for sound quality isn't compressed vs. uncompressed, but lossless vs. lossy. In fact, if network bandwidth is an issue, you're definitely better off with compressed lossless (FLAC, ALAC, lossless WMA) than uncompressed lossless (WAV, AIFF, etc.).

Also, it's probably a very 1990s thing for me to say, but as well as suggesting repeaters or boosters, you could mention that wired ethernet (or HomePlug adapters) give great results too.

peter
2008-01-29, 01:55
simonsays wrote:
> I beg to differ as I wrote that review:
>

I don't understand why you added all that stuff about port forwarding
and opening ports. That kind of thing is only needed if you want to
connect to slimserver from another location on the internet (outside
your home). Something relative few users ever do.

Regards,
Peter

Pale Blue Ego
2008-01-29, 07:39
A few criticisms about the review. I don't think I've seen even a networking novice have so much trouble setting up the SB3. Most people have it running in 10 minutes, especially if they've spent a little time setting up SlimServer while waiting for the SB3 hardware to arrive. And what's with all the port-forwarding?

Also, you say the SB3 doesn't have 5.1 audio output. That's not quite true. SB3 can pass 5.1 DTS-encoded wav or flac files through its digital outputs to be decoded by any HT receiver that handles DTS.

bigfool1956
2008-01-29, 07:54
Aha, got fooled by the site not following de facto standards about multi page articles (i.e. page 1 2 3 ...) and didn't click next, assuming that would be the next article.

Oh well, I take back what I said about no mention of how it sounds.

maggior
2008-01-29, 08:48
simonsays wrote:
> I beg to differ as I wrote that review:
>

I don't understand why you added all that stuff about port forwarding
and opening ports. That kind of thing is only needed if you want to
connect to slimserver from another location on the internet (outside
your home). Something relative few users ever do.

Regards,
Peter


If you have a firewall on the machine running slimserver (like the firewall Windows XP enables by default), you do have to worry about opening ports. Though you certainly don't have to worry about ports being opened and/or fowarded in the router unless you are accessing your server from outside your local network. Including all of that information just really confuses the issue because it is a bit complicated and just plain not necessary.


Regarding the fact that there is no CD included in the box...

A comment in the review takes issue with the fact that there is no CD included in the box. Since the reviewer would have received this without actually ordering it, he would not have experienced the fact that when you order it, you are sent a link to where you can download the software and are invited to download it and install it while you are awaiting the arrival of you new Squeezebox. This is actually pretty cool because you can have everything all set so when the SB arrives, you just plug it in, set up he wireless network settings, and off you go. When I ordered mine, I was listening to music with my SB in 5 minutes!! That's no exaggeration. There is also something called softsqueeze which is a software emulation of a SB that you can run on your PC. Using a laptop, you can fully simulate having a SB in your network.

Not including a disc with hardware is not unprecedented - iPods do not include a CD of iTunes.

MuckleEck
2008-01-30, 05:46
I was also fooled by the next page....read that and one thing that strikes me is the comment that "this relies on a a wireless network" which is not correct, there is always the option of using the wired network.

simonsays
2008-02-23, 23:40
Great feedback, and like I stated - there is the option for regular ethernet connection.

BUT, this is marketed as a "wireless streaming device" - so that's what the article is geared towards.

I run high security on my laptop, router NAT, and Yoggie Pico security device - port forwarding MUST occur for me. If you are not worried about firewall settings, that's your data. Not mine.

And you're right, I should restate on "lossy vs. Lossless" transfer, it's what I meant, and realize I should change that comment.

No CD in the box is a welcomed addition, and completely understood relying this product makes use of an active network - you probably 99% have access to an internet connection as well to download it. It isn't bad, it was just noted.

While it can process 5.1 files, it will not output 5.1 through an audio file that isn't encoded with it (as a standalone processor might). I'll make note that you need to have a 5.1 DTS reciever and 5.1 WAV + flac file to take advantage of this.

Taking advantage of the slimserver network and utilizing a seperate computer in sub. for a squeezebox was awesome! I used the Asus EeePC as written here:

http://www.laptoplogic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5270

amcluesent
2008-02-24, 00:14
>If you are not worried about firewall settings, that's your data. Not mine.<

IMHO you should state in your review that you're running an unusual set-up with a Linux based h/w firewall just for the laptop. You leave the impression that every user will have experience you had.

Setting up an SB takes 2 mins tops, 1 minute is unpacking it.

bl243
2008-02-24, 06:12
I agree with amcluesent, the complications of the network setup are of your own making in order to maintain the security you want to achieve, and the end result is the reader thinking they will have to do the same and being put off.

I have no issue with enforcing high levels of security - it is commendable, but to get high security you have to compromise on convenience - which I think you discovered during the review.

Having said that, if you understand networking to the degree of wanting to implement such security, the changes required to get the Squeezebox working are trivial.