PDA

View Full Version : Duet vs Sonos



zigzag
2008-02-06, 10:21
I have about 700 CDs but I havenít put the time into ripping them because I donít have time in my life with the kids and all that. I looked into a ripping service but then I discovered Rhapsody on my PC and $120/ year for unlimited music was cheaper than ripping and the kids love it because we always have the latest music as it comes out. But, weíre stuck in my home office with all the music in the world coming out of a PC and I want to get it into the playroom, our bedroom and the family/living/dining combo room.

When I ask my friends in the know they all say Sonos if you have the money and if not, Squeezebox. Iím trying to understand the differences in a 4 room setup. It seems like Duets and powered speakers are quite a bit cheaper than a Sonos 4 room setup with speakers.

All music will come directly from Rhapsody. Iím really excited by the idea that I wonít need to run my own jukebox software or a PC at all!

Sorry in advance if these questions are already answered. I did search and couldnít get a clear answer on Rhapsody separate from the server software.

Can my kids play their music in the playroom while my wife and I listen to something different in the family room?

When we have a party can we make a Rhapsody playlist and play it in all 4 rooms at the same time?

If we are going to sleep and the kids are being too loud, can I turn down their music from my Duet in the bedroom?

Can I lock them out of turning it back up?

I have a tax refund coming and I want to spend it before someone gets a better idea.
Thanks
zz

cshaida
2008-02-06, 10:36
"When I ask my friends in the know they all say Sonos if you have the money and if not, Squeezebox. Iím trying to understand the differences in a 4 room setup. It seems like Duets and powered speakers are quite a bit cheaper than a Sonos 4 room setup with speakers. "

I would amend that a bit and say 'if you have the money AND IF you aren't willing to do any fiddling at all' Sonos biggest claim to fame is that it has been built as a consumer appliance (it just works out of the box). I don't think anybody really claims that Sonos has better audio quality and not many people claim it has additional features (other than the remote which the new sb remote becomes competitive). While there are a whole bunch of people (myself included) who think that SBs have better audio and more features -- as long as you are willing to fiddle. Since you appear to be already over the 'fiddling' hump (since you got your SB to work and seem to be happy with it) I don't really see the reason for switching to Sonos?

"Can my kids play their music in the playroom while my wife and I listen to something different in the family room?"

Yes

"When we have a party can we make a Rhapsody playlist and play it in all 4 rooms at the same time?"

Not sure but I can test that tonight (I've got 4 squeezeboxen at home) but somebody else will probably answer this before then.

"If we are going to sleep and the kids are being too loud, can I turn down their music from my Duet in the bedroom? "

Yes

"Can I lock them out of turning it back up?"

Don't know

I have a tax refund coming and I want to spend it before someone gets a better idea.
Thanks

mvalera
2008-02-06, 10:39
Can my kids play their music in the playroom while my wife and I listen to something different in the family room?

Yes, each receiver can play a different Pandora channel.


When we have a party can we make a Rhapsody playlist and play it in all 4 rooms at the same time?

I just checked with the SqueeeNetwork guru, Andy G, and he said you can sync up to three Squeezeboxes at a time to Rhapsody. So not four, but nearly there.


If we are going to sleep and the kids are being too loud, can I turn down their music from my Duet in the bedroom?

Yes, you can control any receiver from anywhere in your home that you get wifi reception.


Can I lock them out of turning it back up?

Take away their SB Controller for the night. :)

seanadams
2008-02-06, 11:04
I just checked with the SqueeeNetwork guru, Andy G, and he said you can sync up to three Squeezeboxes at a time to Rhapsody. So not four, but nearly there.

BTW this is a policy imposed by Rhapsody, not an architectural limitation.

zigzag
2008-02-06, 11:10
Just to clarify, I don't have any SBs (yet). As I understand the system, the Squeezenetwork is the internet based server so I don't have to run a server in my house. That is what I want as we have enough trouble keeping our PCs working.

As I understand mvalera's response, if I'm using the squeezenetwork server, up to 3 rooms can play the same Rhapsody song at the same time.

Two follow-on Q's

Does the 3 room limit apply to Pandora and Internet Radio?

Regarding the issue raised by cshaida: How much "fiddling" are we talking about to set up 4 rooms, control and play Rhapsody music and Internet Radio in the rooms without needing a PC server?

thanks for being so responsive.

zz

Shredder
2008-02-06, 11:17
With the Duet and new Controller, I don't think there is any reason to go w/Sonos. $400 for first room v. $1k; $150 for subsequent rooms v.$400. Comparable sound (I think SB is better, but it is debatable) and vastly more functionality for SB. I don't even really think the Sonos is that much easier to use. With both, you need to set up a music server and that was the difficult part for me. The SB itself takes 3 minutes to get working once the server/network is up an running.

Yes, I am a hack for SD players, but only after having done a lot of research into both options.

andyg
2008-02-06, 11:19
The 3-player limitation is Rhapsody's, it doesn't apply to any other audio source. Syncing internet radio is hit or miss on SN because each player receives a different audio stream and it's not possible to sync those. If you want good sync your best bet is to run SqueezeCenter.

radish
2008-02-06, 11:26
Just curious - if I have a single Rhapsody subscription can I listen to different tracks on different players at the same time?

zigzag
2008-02-06, 11:40
Sorry to be dumb but I really need to understand this before I go through the effort to sell the family on it and then buy it, and get it working.

Is it correct that if I want to synchronize Pandora or Rhapsody to play the same song in more than 3 rooms for Rhapsody or more than one room for Pandora or Internet Radio that I must run a server in my house?

thanks

zz

cshaida
2008-02-06, 11:43
Sorry, I misunderstood and thought you already had one SB.

re 'fiddling' I think it's quite possible that you could get the duet, take it out of the box and have it working in a few minutes. You'll find some testimonials elsewhere here to that effect. It's not that there is some necessary difficult process to go through. And in fact if all you want to do is run Rhapsody you aren't likely to have to do much or any 'fiddling.'

It's also possible that it doesn't just 'work' (maybe you're network is not set up right? etc.). You'll also find threads here to that effect as well though if you follow them through many of them have to do either with other issues outside the SB world (network, router, etc.) a number of them have to do with Slimserver (now SqueezeCenter) and setting up a PC-based musicc server.

In any case, I am most definitely NOT a programmer and the total amount of 'fiddling' for me over the past several years has been quite minimal (I went through all sorts of hijinks unrelated to SB when ripping my extension CD collection. But that's another story altogether...). Money was not an issue for me. I did look carefuly at Sonos (having been an early adopter with the late Audiotron) and just thought the SB approach was better.

As long as your willing to do a miminal bit of problem-solving and willing to avail yourself of the tremendous resources through this forum you should end up a happy camper.

(btw, if you do go down this path you'll find a wealth of information elsewhere in this forum on powered speakers and other multi-room ideas with the SB)

andyg
2008-02-06, 11:48
Just curious - if I have a single Rhapsody subscription can I listen to different tracks on different players at the same time?

Yes, up to 3 different players at the same time.

andyg
2008-02-06, 11:53
Sorry to be dumb but I really need to understand this before I go through the effort to sell the family on it and then buy it, and get it working.

Is it correct that if I want to synchronize Pandora or Rhapsody to play the same song in more than 3 rooms for Rhapsody or more than one room for Pandora or Internet Radio that I must run a server in my house?

thanks

zz

Here's how it breaks down for sync:



SC7 SN (new datacenters)

MP3 radio Yes No
WMA radio No No
Pandora Yes Yes
Slacker Yes Yes
MP3tunes Yes Yes
Rhapsody Yes (up to 3) Yes (up to 3)
LMA Yes Yes

jaffacake
2008-02-06, 12:29
I just checked with the SqueeeNetwork guru, Andy G, and he said you can sync up to three Squeezeboxes at a time to Rhapsody. So not four, but nearly there.


BTW this is a policy imposed by Rhapsody, not an architectural limitation

This is very interesting because, as I understand it, Sonos can sync Rhapsody in all of up to 32 zones concurrently...with one Rhapsody subscription. Do SBs have a different licensing agreement? Or is it just the way you sync?

Assuming you're using a different Rhapsody stream for each Duet zone, does that mean it would use 3 times the bandwidth on my internet pipe to play the same song in 3 rooms?



The 3-player limitation is Rhapsody's, it doesn't apply to any other audio source. Syncing internet radio is hit or miss on SN because each player receives a different audio stream and it's not possible to sync those. If you want good sync your best bet is to run SqueezeCenter.

So you can't sync internet radio effectively like Sonos does? Are you actually reading these streams multiple times when you could just share the one feed?

Incidentally, how easy is it to link the rooms on the new Duet controller? Is it like just one button?

andyg
2008-02-06, 12:38
I don't claim to know anything about the Sonos architecture but I would guess they only have one connection to the Rhapsody audio and then transport the decrypted audio within their closed network to each player. We can't do that, so each player needs a separate connection to the Rhapsody server.

The reason internet radio can't be synced well when on SN is because each player must make its own connection to the radio server, which means each player will most likely start at a different point in the audio. There is no way to sync the audio if they don't start from a known good point. This is why sync does work fine for track-based content such as Pandora - all the players will start playback at the same time with the same exact file.

jaffacake
2008-02-06, 12:46
I don't claim to know anything about the Sonos architecture but I would guess they only have one connection to the Rhapsody audio and then transport the decrypted audio within their closed network to each player. We can't do that, so each player needs a separate connection to the Rhapsody server.

Why "can't" and not "don't"?

Surely it's possible, you've just said that Sonos do it? So why can't you do the same?

I thought the beauty of the Slim products was the open 802.11 standard that allows the devices to talk together easily? Are you saying they don't actually talk to one another, just share a remote control?

andyg
2008-02-06, 12:50
Right, players don't talk to each other, only the server. In order to share a single Rhapsody connection, the server would need to talk directly to Rhapsody, and this is not possible because our server is open source.

jaffacake
2008-02-06, 12:54
Right, players don't talk to each other, only the server. In order to share a single Rhapsody connection, the server would need to talk directly to Rhapsody, and this is not possible because our server is open source.

Ah, so the open nature of the SB makes it complicated when connecting to 3rd party proprietary networks like Rhapsody?

Is this why i heard the new Duet controller isn't fully open source?

andyg
2008-02-06, 12:58
Yes, having an open server means anything DRM-related must be in the player firmware.

jaffacake
2008-02-06, 13:02
Yes, having an open server means anything DRM-related must be in the player firmware.

Ah, so it's all because of DRM? So when all these companies finally ditch DRM you'll be able to sync all the rooms without trouble?

Incidentally, I didn't get an answer on how easy it was to link rooms; can you oblige? Nobody sent me a press-pack yet else I'd test for myself.

andyg
2008-02-06, 13:16
Possibly, but don't get your hopes up about that.

andyg
2008-02-06, 13:16
Re: how easy it is to sync, it's no different than how you sync on the player UI or web UI.

eritor
2008-02-06, 13:47
This might not be popular here , but I recommend the Sonos system. I looked at the Duet first, but after reading the forums here extensively (!) I realized that it can be buggy and/or a hassle it you are unlucky. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of an open-source system, but I just want the system to work, if not because it's a big selling point to my wife (who is a little tired of my extensive tech-escapades). I talked to my friend who has the Sonos, and got a bundle. I'm exceptionally pleased, after 20 minutes I had the System connected and up and running on my Fit-PC (check it out at www.fit-pc.com , I love it), tablet, desktop, my wife's Mac and the included controller.
I'll rate the Sonos-system a 10, first time ever for a product by me (and I've tried quite a few)!

Also, the customer service is exceptional. Slim Devices is really really good as well, I've received great advice really fast here at the forum. But the Sonos experience was in a league of its own: I asked a few questions at the forums and got immediate replies.I sent a question by mail and got a free number to call from Sweden (!). I didn't call (solved it, it was about a firewall), but two weeks later I got a question by mail asking if the question was solved, if not they had added the answer to the FAQ. I had to call support later on, and it took some time to solve it, but I got told that "I'm here till we fix this" by the tech-guy. Turns out it was my router, not the Sonos. Tech- guy: "Glad to help". This kind of customer support is unheard of in Sweden. I know that many many people here are very happy with their Squeezeboxes, but Sonos is for me (and my wife as it turns out).

I'm not in any way affiliated to Sonos.

peter
2008-02-06, 14:01
eritor wrote:
> This might not be popular here , but I recommend the Sonos system. I
> looked at the Duet first, but after reading the forums here extensively
> (!) I realized that it can be buggy and/or a hassle it you are unlucky.
>

Uhmmm, this is a beta product we're talking about.
If you want to compare things use an SB3 with SS 6.5.

> by mail and got a free number to call from Sweden (!). I didn't call
> (solved it, it was about a firewall), but two weeks later I got a
> question by mail asking if the question was solved, if not they had
> added the answer to the FAQ. I had to call support later on, and it
> took some time to solve it, but I got told that "I'm here till we fix
> this" by the tech-guy. Turns out it was my router, not the Sonos. Tech-
>

Sounds like you had 2 hassles.
These forums are full of networking/router problems too.

X.

SuperQ
2008-02-06, 14:19
Ah, so the open nature of the SB makes it complicated when connecting to 3rd party proprietary networks like Rhapsody?

Is this why i heard the new Duet controller isn't fully open source?

Some of it's DRM, but mostly it is because the core design of the Squeezebox is "slim". The Squeezebox must always have a connection to a server (SqueezeCenter on your PC, or SqueezeNetwork on the internet) in order to function. Each Squeezebox is separate, they don't mesh or talk at all. They are slaves to the server. Sync is done by having the server control the playback timing. With a local server the internet streams are "proxied" so only one internet stream is required and the SqueezeCenter does the multiplication for the number of Squeezeboxes.

The Squeezebox Controller (Duet remote) was fully open source last I checked out the code from the subversion server. :-)

My personal recommendation is this:
I would download the SqueezeCenter beta software and give it a try with SoftSqueeze. This will show you almost exactly how it will function with the the Squeezebox and Duet systems.

SuperQ
2008-02-06, 14:23
This might not be popular here , but I recommend the Sonos system.

I don't find people here will object to differing opinions. (Well, maybe in the Audiophile forum ;)

The sonos is a nice box. I really like the simple integrated amp and controller. I just find that Squeezebox fits my needs more. :-)

mvalera
2008-02-06, 15:23
There is no hate for Sonos here, it's a great product.

We're just aiming to produce a better product with the Duet. I think we're well on our way.

Mike

JJZolx
2008-02-06, 19:23
I don't claim to know anything about the Sonos architecture but I would guess they only have one connection to the Rhapsody audio and then transport the decrypted audio within their closed network to each player. We can't do that

Why not? That would seem to be the ovious way of doing it, particularly if synching and whole house audio are a priority.

jeffmc
2008-02-06, 19:47
re: Rhapsody

If it is a single stream, and n number of devices synchronize on their side through a server, or master or something, then it is one stream. (This is how Sonos multi-zone works).

If it is three separate streams, and for some reason the three streams are being sync'd, then it is a 3 stream limit.

jeffmc
2008-02-06, 19:52
I don't claim to know anything about the Sonos architecture but I would guess they only have one connection to the Rhapsody audio and then transport the decrypted audio within their closed network to each player. We can't do that, so each player needs a separate connection to the Rhapsody server.


Right, they simply have one stream coming into the Sonos, then they synchronize that (because they are using their own 2.4GHZ mesh network to the other zones. By doing that, they can enforce a QoS for the sync. The streams sent to each zone are not in the open, BTW.

snarlydwarf
2008-02-06, 20:24
Why not? That would seem to be the ovious way of doing it, particularly if synching and whole house audio are a priority.

My guess: DRM.

Sending an stream of decrypted audio over a wire or 802.11 interface is probably a no-no. Sending it over a proprietary encrypted 2.4G microwave connection is probably okay.

Sonos doesn't use standard 802.11 for their network, they use their own transport layer. For some applications (ie, appeasing the silly music companies), this can be an advantage. For "polluting 2.4G even more than my neighbors" this is a drawback.

jeffmc
2008-02-06, 22:59
My guess: DRM.

Sending an stream of decrypted audio over a wire or 802.11 interface is probably a no-no. Sending it over a proprietary encrypted 2.4G microwave connection is probably okay.

Sonos doesn't use standard 802.11 for their network, they use their own transport layer. For some applications (ie, appeasing the silly music companies), this can be an advantage. For "polluting 2.4G even more than my neighbors" this is a drawback.

2.4 just has a huge noise floor. Let alone firing up the microwave (and all aren't as tight as we are led to believe), which basically is a barrage jammer ;) Gotta love a magnetron. I am starting to pollute 5GHZ and 5.8 GHZ myself ;)

jaffacake
2008-02-07, 06:09
My guess: DRM.

Sending an stream of decrypted audio over a wire or 802.11 interface is probably a no-no. Sending it over a proprietary encrypted 2.4G microwave connection is probably okay.


There's no DRM on internet radio dude...

Siduhe
2008-02-07, 06:25
There's no DRM on internet radio dude...

Rhapsody is a proprietory music service though.

And plenty of people want DRM even on internet radio, especially the US Senate - google the Perform Act and DRM. The concern is (IIRC) partly driven by stuff like this (http://www.popcatcher.com/).

shawkie
2008-02-07, 07:05
Why not? That would seem to be the ovious way of doing it, particularly if synching and whole house audio are a priority.

I also think that a system where audio is "pushed" from the server (like the Sonos) would be much better for whole house synching than the approach used by SlimServer/SqueezeCenter. We could have proper gapless, synched playback and we could have an audio input on the server for true place-shifting.

I agree that when SlimServer started out that was probably impossible but now we have 802.11n and 5.0GHz and QoS I'm not at all sure. I think there is now the opportunity to match every aspect of the Sonos system without resorting to proprietry protocols.

The DRM problem might be more difficult. I don't really know what the restrictions are. Presumably you can get the digital audio from Rhapsody out of the Squeezebox? What stops you feeding that back onto the network as a decrypted stream?

In the meantime, while I wait for Sonos to move to 802.11n or SlimDevices to move from "pull" to "push", I have my own solution which would work fine for people wanting to listen to the same synched Rhapsody stream in as many rooms as they like. Take the digital output from the Squeezebox and wire it to all your rooms. Simple. If you don't like wires then feed it into a video sender (go for 5.8GHz to avoid interference). You can still use a SqueezeController (or whatever) anywhere on your wireless network to control it. In fact, why bother with a Squeezebox at all? Just build a nice little nano-ITX box and run SqueezeCentre and Softsqueeze on it. Plug in a video sender and listen to it anywhere.

y360
2008-02-07, 07:46
It's convoluted but I suppose Rhapsody PC client running UPNP can talk to a slimserver which in turn streams to multiple clients ?
I know that's how Roku support Rhapsody
Squeezenetwork is obviously much better

jaffacake
2008-02-07, 09:04
I also think that a system where audio is "pushed" from the server (like the Sonos) would be much better for whole house synching than the approach used by SlimServer/SqueezeCenter. We could have proper gapless, synched playback and we could have an audio input on the server for true place-shifting.


Slim doesn't offer gapless playback? What about Pink Floyd?

autopilot
2008-02-07, 09:10
Slim doesn't offer gapless playback? What about Pink Floyd?

Dont panic, all SB's do gapless just fine ;)

jaffacake
2008-02-07, 09:13
Dont panic, all SB's do gapless just fine ;)


Shawkie: What were you on about then?

radish
2008-02-07, 09:21
Shawkie: What were you on about then?

If players are synced they lose the ability to play gaplessly.

Mitch Harding
2008-02-07, 09:57
The explanation given earlier in the thread was that SqueezeCenter is
open source, and there are problems having the DRM decrypter be part
of an open source package. That's why it's okay to have it in the
player firmware, since that's not open source.

On Feb 7, 2008 8:05 AM, shawkie
<shawkie.34ez2n1202393401 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
> The DRM problem might be more difficult. I don't really know what the
> restrictions are. Presumably you can get the digital audio from
> Rhapsody out of the Squeezebox? What stops you feeding that back onto
> the network as a decrypted stream?
>

jaffacake
2008-02-07, 10:57
So to summarise for the OP:

Sonos has always been better at the multi-room and controller thing, but Slim Devices are hoping to close this gap with the new Duet product.

Although newer than Sonos, it doesn't actually offer feature equivalence. For example, going multi-room has considerable limitations due to it not being a peer2peer mesh like Sonos.

This affects synchronisation - audio may be out of sync between rooms.

This affects gapless playback, so classical music and other continuous recordings may be interrupted whilst listening.

This affects Internet radio, which can't be synced between linked SD players.

So Slim Devices offer a good digital audio product and improved control when using the new Duet, but for true multi-room it seems that Sonos, whilst more expensive, has a significant technology lead. It seems very much like you may get what you pay for but if you're on a limited budget, SD will offer a feature-reduced equivalent that may suit smaller households.

Whilst SD used to be the open-source option, more of the product is becoming locked into closed firmware in an effort to keep up with critical requirements in the market place such as online music services. This makes it more relevant than ever to just compare the products directly on bang for buck value.

If you don't want the "it just works" multi-room function that Sonos offer at a small premium then there are other products like SD and Roku to fill that gap.

Edit to add: Incidentally, I work for no company in the market place. I run email for a car company, I just love music :)

cshaida
2008-02-07, 11:29
I think if you were to search and replace on the above summary and replace 'multi-room' with 'synchronous multi-room' it seems about right. I happen to have 4 SBs so have a fully functioning 'multi-room' system. I hardly ever want to have all of these 'synched' so for me the SBs 'multi-room' capability is quite good--and you'd have a hard time convincing me that (again since for me sync is not part of my multi-room requirement) Sonos is better-except-just-a-bit-more-expensive (since I did look at it quite and was quite willing to spend the extra money but I thought--for me--it just wasn't as good. I could explain but it included a variety of factors that are likely not to be generally interesting (anybody want to guess why wire lath and plaster is a MUCH bigger problem for Sonos than SB? for instance).

Given that the originator of this thread made it clear that for him synching was a BIG part of his multi-room requirement the summary probably works well for him.

peter
2008-02-07, 12:18
jaffacake wrote:

> It seems very
> much like you may get what you pay for but if you're on a limited
> budget, SD will offer a feature-reduced equivalent that may suit
> smaller households.
>

There are many SB functions that aren't matched by Sonos, just check the
plugin list.

Regards,
Peter

jaffacake
2008-02-07, 12:30
There are many SB functions that aren't matched by Sonos, just check the
plugin list.

Regards,
Peter

Sorry, I was targetting the response at the OPs and his specific requirements for Rhapsody and multi-room sync.

zigzag
2008-02-07, 13:25
Thanks for all the information in such a short time.

I learned a lot though it was not as straight forward as I hoped. If I don't want to run a server (and I definitely don't) then I can play Pandora songs in as many room simultaneously as I want, Rhapsody songs in up to 3 rooms and internet radio in just 1.

The number of exceptions means that my biggest fear in all of this is that I will end up being the full time music system operator.

I guess I'll get to know the Sonos better to see if I can go with it without adding to my workload at home.

But, I must commend this forum on the openness on the part of the community and the company. If I was more techie, I'd be hanging around here.

Thanks again

zz

radish
2008-02-07, 13:33
Some clarification is in order...


This affects synchronisation - audio may be out of sync between rooms.

Only when streaming from something external. Local files will sync just fine.



This affects gapless playback, so classical music and other continuous recordings may be interrupted whilst listening.

Only when sync'd or playing inheriently gappy files. I'd love gapless to work when sync'd, and one day maybe it will :)



This affects Internet radio, which can't be synced between linked SD players.

True.



It seems very much like you may get what you pay for but if you're on a limited budget, SD will offer a feature-reduced equivalent that may suit smaller households.

Budget and size of household has nothing to do with it. My household makes very little use of external sources like Rhapsody, we mainly play local files. As a result the SD solution works perfectly, and in fact the many features Sonos don't offer mean that I wouldn't switch regardless of any price difference. SD matches my needs much more closely than Sonos does.



Whilst SD used to be the open-source option, more of the product is becoming locked into closed firmware in an effort to keep up with critical requirements in the market place such as online music services. This makes it more relevant than ever to just compare the products directly on bang for buck value.

It's always relevant to compare on "bang for buck". The fact that the server is open source one main reasons we get so much bang for so few bucks. I strongly encourage anyone to compare products based on the features that matter to them, but for me one of those important features is the openness of the platform. YMMV.



If you don't want the "it just works" multi-room function that Sonos offer at a small premium then there are other products like SD and Roku to fill that gap.

100% is hardly a "small premium" :)

radish
2008-02-07, 13:34
If I don't want to run a server (and I definitely don't) then I can play Pandora songs in as many room simultaneously as I want, Rhapsody songs in up to 3 rooms and internet radio in just 1.


I don't see why you can't play internet radio in as many rooms as you like, even the same station. It just won't be perfectly synced.

shawkie
2008-02-07, 16:31
The funny thing is, the fact that I don't have a Sonos system has absolutely nothing to do with cost. Its simply that I refuse to have such a device operating on 2.4GHz independently of my Wi-Fi network. Those frequencies are simply way too busy (at least in urban areas) already.

peterw
2008-02-07, 19:40
The Squeezebox Controller (Duet remote) was fully open source last I checked out the code from the subversion server. :-)


SqueezeCenter is Open Source (http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd), but the Controller software (the top layer, the "Jive" code) is released under a very restrictive (IMO) proprietary license. See http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?JiveArchitecture -- the Logitech Public Source license (http://svn.slimdevices.com/trunk/jive/src/pkg/jive/LICENSE?root=Jive&view=markup) is what I'm talking about.

For instance, the Logitech Public Source license does not allow me to share a modified version directly with anyone other than Logitech, and it tries to claim for Logitech the right to knock on my door and demand any changes I've made to the Jive software for my own personal use.

The source code for the Controller is available, but it is NOT open source.

-Peter

JJZolx
2008-02-07, 19:58
If I don't want to run a server (and I definitely don't) then I can

I think both products are definitely _NOT_ for you. You lose most of the functionality of the devices by limiting yourself to poor quality Internet radio and pay services. Why spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars for that?

Pale Blue Ego
2008-02-07, 20:44
I think both products are definitely _NOT_ for you. You lose most of the functionality of the devices by limiting yourself to poor quality Internet radio and pay services. Why spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars for that?

I think this person is trying to please his whole family without it becoming a tech support nightmare for himself. He says they have enough trouble keeping their PCs running, so the idea of no local server is compelling. Also, his kids want to hear the latest music and Rhapsody offers that.

Needing multi-room sync complicates things, because that is easier to do with a local server, which he does not want to run.

His is a rather specialized problem and he should definitely choose the platform that best fits those specialized needs.

As for sound quality, I can recall enjoying music very much growing up, even though I was listening to cheap radios, 8-tracks, and portable phonographs through lousy speakers.

pfarrell
2008-02-07, 20:51
Pale Blue Ego wrote:
> Needing multi-room sync complicates things, because that is easier to
> do with a local server, which he does not want to run.
>
> His is a rather specialized problem and he should definitely choose the
> platform that best fits those specialized needs.

To which I'd suggest a whole house speaker switching setup with a single
device feeding a old-school common amp.

I've never seen a Sonos, but it sure sounds like a computer to me.

Don't look for a computer solution. Look at what the AV guys have been
installing for 40 years. Its not like any solution is going to be
audiophile.

Its not duet vs sonos, that's the wrong question. Its what solution
solves the problem, and I think its neither of those


--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/

SuperQ
2008-02-07, 21:39
SqueezeCenter is Open Source (http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd), but the Controller software (the top layer, the "Jive" code) is released under a very restrictive (IMO) proprietary license. See http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?JiveArchitecture -- the Logitech Public Source license (http://svn.slimdevices.com/trunk/jive/src/pkg/jive/LICENSE?root=Jive&view=markup) is what I'm talking about.

For instance, the Logitech Public Source license does not allow me to share a modified version directly with anyone other than Logitech, and it tries to claim for Logitech the right to knock on my door and demand any changes I've made to the Jive software for my own personal use.

The source code for the Controller is available, but it is NOT open source.

-Peter

Hrm, ok, I guess I'll have to read the Logitech license a bit more to understand it. I had thought it was more of a mozilla-based license. If your reading of it is right, that sucks a lot more than I thought it did. Kinda a shame.

I will disagree on the "Not open source" statement. The software source is open, but it's not "Free Software" as the FSF defines it. There are many examples of "Open Source" applications that require payment, don't allow modification, etc. (A number of PHP apps for example).

Ben Sandee
2008-02-07, 22:56
On Feb 7, 2008 8:40 PM, peterw <
peterw.34fy0z1202438701 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:

> The source code for the Controller is available, but it is NOT open
> source.


You mean it's not Open Source. It is open source.

Ben

msherman
2008-02-08, 07:25
SuperQ wrote:
>
> I will disagree on the "Not open source" statement. The software
> source is open, but it's not "Free Software" as the FSF defines it.
> There are many examples of "Open Source" applications that require
> payment, don't allow modification, etc. (A number of PHP apps for
> example).

This is incorrect.

You should re-read the Open Source Definition:

http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd

Pretty much the only difference between the Free Software and Open
Source movements are their motivations (political vs. economic).

- Marc

gbrandwood
2008-02-08, 14:07
Can you please confirm, even if playing from a local SlimServer installation, that you cannot achieve gapless playback with a multi-room party (synced) implementation? I understand it's a no-no for Internet radio or subscription service, but for local playback? This is perhaps a crucial point for many people. Thanks in advance.

andyg
2008-02-08, 14:24
Correct, gapless is not currently supported when synced. Alan has some plans to possibly fix this in a future version, but it will be a lot of work.

gbrandwood
2008-02-08, 15:27
thanks for clarfying. Will look forward to the future feature.

jaffacake
2008-02-11, 01:07
Correct, gapless is not currently supported when synced. Alan has some plans to possibly fix this in a future version, but it will be a lot of work.

How much is a "lot of work"? Any timescales? A month? 6mths? A year?

Nonreality
2008-03-30, 00:15
I believe that this person is the same as a person that was asking very pointed questions about very specific things the SB did not do as well as the Sonos system. They were questions that the answers were known ahead of time to make it look more natural and put the Duet in a bad light. This post is at Cnet in the comments after a great review on the Duet. I don't believe this person has even used a Duet and used this forum to try to convince people on moving to the Sonos system. Anyway read for yourself, it seems very underhanded to me when you link them together the way this person did. Alludes they are a hifi consultant and acts like WPA security is a bad and unusual thing. All the wording seems planned to scare non technical people away from the duet and squeezebox altogether. They throw in a bit of very condescending good points about the SB, just enough to make people think they are judging it fairly. It all sounds like a certain person asking "innocent advise in this thread to me.




User Summary

"Not Entirely Convinced"
by ro53ben (see profile) - March 5, 2008

Pros: Improvement on existing product offerings, low budget alternative

Cons: Setup woes, synchronisation problems, Rhapsody limitations
41 out of 142 people found this review helpful.
hide (x)Full user opinion
I'm not entirely convinced.

As a freelance consultant to some UK based hifi resellers and publications I've been following the Duet closely since it was announced. Previously Sonos has always been very high up on my recommended list...a true 5 star product.

Duet certainly improves on the previously very limited control mechanism offering Squeeze owners a glimpse of the full Sonos experience.

Looking into it a little closer, you can see it still offers some of the same negatives that all Slim products have come packaged with. Setup still isn't as simple as it could be, juggling with wifi encryption keys and fiddly interfaces makes it a little more like Plug & Pray that ease of use.

The Slim communities are full of similar setup woes, with even hardened geeks getting it all wrong at times.
One particular thread from the community is worth a read:

http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=43155

It compares some of the market leading Sonos functions with Duet and shows where Slim have fallen short. Music services like Rhapsody can only be played back in 3 rooms and can't be synchronised. Same goes for internet radio, so your favourite radio station will echo annoyingly between your kitchen and Den areas.


[url]http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-media-receivers/logitech-squeezebox-duet/4864-6739_7-32815168.html?ctype=msgid&messageSiteID=7&messageID=2563491&cval=2563491&tag=uolst[/url}

Sonos can play these services in up to 32 zones in perfect sync. As Slim Devices Developer andyg said in their own forum "We can't do that" "this is not possible because our server is open source". But will it do it in the future, andyg? "don't get your hopes up about that."

Ironically the whole open source nature that attracted geeks to Squeezebox is what is holding it back when it tries to compete effectively in the market place. Years since the Sonos launch and it still can't sync zones efficiently which is what attracted people to Sonos in the first place.

Delay between the players can be such that you feel you're listening not in your home but in the Grand Canyon...which kinda describes the gap between Duet and Sonos when it comes to core functionality.

Even the new controller falls way short of the full control offered by Sonos in their handheld controller which is totally intuitive and easy to pick up for new owners.

If people just wanted to put their digital music in different rooms of the home with a remote control, they could just buy a Bose Sounddock - the clear winner at the low end of the market. But if they want full control and a whole house experience, Sonos is still going to take the gold medal.

So where does this leave Slim? Well, I guess the guys over at Gizmodo cover it well. 'because of the Linux-friendly nature of Squeeze, the "tweaker or hacker type" will have lots of fun'. Certainly more fun than it is trying to train retail staff how to set it up.

http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-media-receivers/logitech-squeezebox-duet/4864-6739_7-32815168.html?ctype=msgid&messageSiteID=7&messageID=2563491&cval=2563491&tag=uolst

mick_w
2008-03-30, 01:36
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing when I read the CNet review...

The guys name is Ben Rose (aka Jafacake, RO53BEN) and he's been a Sonos user since 2005 with over 2500 posts on the Sonos forum.

http://www.jaffacake.net/bensblog.nsf/dx/sonos---update

http://www.jaffacake.net/dx/sonoszp100

Looks like he just wanted to do a hatchet job on the Duet....

Rather than a "freelance consultant to some UK based hifi resellers and publications" he's actually an IT administrator with a rather large "ego", see his old blog:

http://www.jaffacake.net/bensblog.nsf/dx/about-me

His CNet profile also claims he owns a Duet, which is strange as they weren't available in the UK at the time of his review.

Its annoying he has abused the good nature of this forum and the open attitude of the slim device personnel to attempt to rubbish the product.

Nonreality
2008-03-30, 11:10
Yeah it's really a shame that he has such an ego to be right about everything that he can't stand to see another product compete with his beloved Sonos. It's too bad because he has probably caused a few people to miss out on a great product that they might have really enjoyed. I don't understand it because from what I can tell they are both great products with different approaches. He must be pretty young and takes it as an affront that people might like something other than his choice. Thats the problem with reviews at sites, one person can have a vendetta against a product for whatever reason and can influence people with lies and partial facts. He came here and got some small problems he could use to make it sound like they were huge problems then posted as if he actually owned one. Then posted a link back to here to make people think he had found this site to back up the make believe problems on his make believe Duet and used a make believe job to give himself and his review some credibility.

MuckleEck
2008-03-30, 11:28
The most galling thing about Ben Rose's post on CNET and his posts on here are that, as a person resident in the UK he can't legally use Rhapsody/Pandora etc so why state that the Sonos can stream to more than 3 rooms and the SB can't when in his case it is irrelevant.

mick_w
2008-03-30, 15:41
I posted a comment on his blog asking him about 'his' Duet and he claims he was 'loaned' a pre-release unit from a friend. Curiously he's now closed the blog entry to any further comments...

I really cant understand why anyone would go to so much trouble to bad mouth a product. Life's far too short...

Nonreality
2008-03-30, 16:38
The most galling thing about Ben Rose's post on CNET and his posts on here are that, as a person resident in the UK he can't legally use Rhapsody/Pandora etc so why state that the Sonos can stream to more than 3 rooms and the SB can't when in his case it is irrelevant.

None of it matters to him, it is just something to slam the Squeezebox on. He is a punk with a chip on his shoulder about Squeezebox and is afraid if people use it, his beloved Sonos will suffer. I really wonder if he might work for them, he has stuff all over his site about them.

James_B
2008-03-31, 12:32
There is also a rather suspicious review on Amazon.co.uk