PDA

View Full Version : Setup a duet without the remote? On the SB touch screen?



mnichollsuk
2009-12-13, 14:58
Hey

My remote has dired for my SB duet, i never use it anyway, as i control everything from a touch screen, however, it is needed to setup the SB on the network

When the touch arrives, will i be able to setup my SB Duet reciever on the touch interface?

Thanks

fcm4711
2009-12-13, 16:54
Hi mnichollsuk

That is currently not a planned feature for Squeezebox Touch. You will still need a Controller to setup a Receiver.

However a Touch can control a Receiver (like any other player) if it is already setup.

Felix

ajkidle
2009-12-14, 08:13
Hi mnichollsuk

That is currently not a planned feature for Squeezebox Touch. You will still need a Controller to setup a Receiver.

Felix

A continued source of annoyance for SBR owners.

mnichollsuk, I'd bet your Controller is still under warranty. You'd have to have been a very early adopter to be out of the 2-year warranty window. (In fact, I don't think the Duet has even out for 2 years.)

maggior
2009-12-14, 08:25
Good point - it came out in January almost 2 years ago, so that would make it Jan 2008.

BTW, I like your sig fcm4711. To their detriment, many companies and managers never learn that essential skill - saying "no"!

Mnyb
2009-12-14, 09:10
You can always configure one SBR with the net udap perl script from a PC
This is a third party command line tool, it works but it is not the most user-friendly piece of kit.

It was said that it would develop further to something with graphical user interface, but it never got that far for some reason.

Net-udap is essential without it many sbr would not run.
I solved the "blue led" problem with it, during my initial setup.
A fine example of third party developers being very good for this product line.

ModelCitizen
2009-12-15, 14:24
A fine example of third party developers being very good for this product line.

I'm not sure I understand why this sort of functionality is left to third party devolopers. I'm inclined to think a function as crucial as this should have been implemented and be supported by Logitech.

MC

ajkidle
2009-12-20, 10:37
I'm not sure I understand why this sort of functionality is left to third party devolopers. I'm inclined to think a function as crucial as this should have been implemented and be supported by Logitech.

MC

I couldn't agree more. Why the SBR doesn't stand on its own without a 3rd party tool is beyond me.

erland
2009-12-25, 00:11
I'm not sure I understand why this sort of functionality is left to third party devolopers. I'm inclined to think a function as crucial as this should have been implemented and be supported by Logitech.

Maybe Logitech likes the idea that a user has to purchase a Controller to get a Receiver to work ?
At least the sales/marketing section of Logitech.

I personally feel that there are more important stuff for the Logitech developers to focus on than implementing things that make users purchase less hardware from them.

If you want a user friendly way to activate a Receiver, you need to buy a Controller. If you are fine with a more complex solution you have the choice to pay less and use the third party solution.

pfarrell
2009-12-25, 00:57
erland wrote:
> Maybe Logitech likes the idea that a user has to purchase a Controller
> to get a Receiver to work ?

I could be wrong, but as I remember it, the initial offering was for the
Duet only, which was a Receiver AND a Controller.

It was later that you could buy an additional Receiver, which assumed
you had at least one Controller for the setup.

> If you want a user friendly way to activate a Receiver, you need to buy
> a Controller. If you are fine with a more complex solution you have the
> choice to pay less and use the third party solution.

This is how I remember the logic as well.

I'm not at all sure what this has to do with the Touch, since this is in
the Touch section of the forum.

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

pippin
2009-12-25, 01:35
I'm not at all sure what this has to do with the Touch, since this is in
the Touch section of the forum.


The Touch is a full SqueezePlay device and _I_ would really consider it as a defect if it finally cannot set up a Receiver since it can otherwise completely replace a controller.
This is also what this thread is about.

erland
2009-12-25, 01:40
I'm not at all sure what this has to do with the Touch, since this is in
the Touch section of the forum.

From Logitech's point of view it feels logical that they think a user with multiple devices needs a good remote control, so it's not that strange if they think most of these users are going to want a Controller anyway.

Yes, I know iPeng and similar solutions exists, but I'm pretty sure Logitech's want these users to get a Controller instead.

If you look at existing users, I suspect most Receiver users probably has bought at least one Duet since the third party solution wasn't available from the beginning.

It's important to remember that you only need one Controller, you don't need a Controller for each Receiver you have.

erland
2009-12-25, 01:55
The Touch is a full SqueezePlay device and _I_ would really consider it as a defect if it finally cannot set up a Receiver since it can otherwise completely replace a controller.

But it can't completely replace the Controller anyway, because it's standing 3 meters from where I'm sitting in the sofa. If you want a good remote in the sofa you will either have to get a Controller or rely on third party solutions like iPeng. I'm guessing that Logitech marketing/sales section want everyone to get a Controller.

The only situation where I can see the Touch replacing the Controller is in a wall mounted solution, but I suspect the users with wall mounted Touch devices are going to be a minority. All the other users are going to want a remote in the room they are standing in. Let's say they are in the kitchen, having to walk to the living room where you have the Touch to be able to change the music in the kitchen where the Receiver is won't be a good solution. A Controller or similar third party solution (like iPeng) in the kitchen is required in this scenario for a good experience.

I completely understand if Logitech don't want to spend development resources to make it easier for people to use third party hardware instead of Logitech hardware. It's really good that they make it possible to use third party hardware but spending extra development resources to make that easier seems stupid from a Logitech point of view.

I also think that most users that want an extra player isn't going to go with a non Logitech solution just because they need a Controller to easily set it up. If they already have a Squeezebox product, they are either going to buy a Duet or another Touch or accept that there is some more complex configuration needed to be able to setup a Reciever without a Controller.

By the way, maybe it would be possible to implement the Receiver setup logic in iPeng ?

pippin
2009-12-25, 03:17
I'm trying.
But I'm not sure Apple will let me do the WiFi setup logic since I have to use stuff that is not allowed on App Store for that.
It also means shutting down all other communication so it's a bit of a difficult thing to do from a program logic POV.
So maybe it will only work for wired receivers.

andyd30
2009-12-25, 14:36
I'm trying.
But I'm not sure Apple will let me do the WiFi setup logic since I have to use stuff that is not allowed on App Store for that.
It also means shutting down all other communication so it's a bit of a difficult thing to do from a program logic POV.
So maybe it will only work for wired receivers.

When I used Net::UDAP to set up my 1st two SqueezeBox Receivers, the SBR needed to be hard wired for setup anyway - as part of the setup you specified if it was to be used wireless or wired. So for me as an existing ipeng user it would be a bonus if ipeng could also be used to set up the SBR.

ipeng is a great app by the way :)

EddieV
2009-12-27, 12:33
Hi guys,

I just found a reason why you would want a Controller with your SBR. If you use the Squeezebox Server to control the playback volume it will give you only ten steps from zero to maximum. With the controller (or an iPeng) you get the full 100-steps resolution. Since I fully depend on digital volume control the case without Controller is useless for me. Nice piece of marketing from Logitech.

Kind regards,
Eddie

pippin
2009-12-27, 13:42
I just found a reason why you would want a Controller with your SBR. If you use the Squeezebox Server to control the playback volume it will give you only ten steps from zero to maximum.

That's only the web interface. The IR remote or the touch screen control on the touch give you the full volume detail.

aubuti
2009-12-28, 07:31
That's only the web interface. The IR remote or the touch screen control on the touch give you the full volume detail.
The poster referred to volume control on the SBR (Receiver), which of course has no IR capability. Kind of a non-sequitur in the SB Touch forum.

kidstypike
2009-12-28, 08:47
That's only the web interface. The IR remote or the touch screen control on the touch give you the full volume detail.

Also, using an IR on a SB Radio to control a SBR, you would get 100 step volume. ;)

EddieV
2009-12-28, 13:13
The poster referred to volume control on the SBR (Receiver), which of course has no IR capability. Kind of a non-sequitur in the SB Touch forum.

Hello aubuti,

I did not learn Latin in high-school so I looked it up in the dictionairy. I understand that IR remote is not an option. To get a 100-step volume control I now know as options: iPhone/iPeng, SB Touch and SB controller. The last one is the cheapest and the most obvious choice. Or does anybody here have alternatives?


Kind regards,
Eddie

pippin
2009-12-28, 14:30
Most obvious: yes. Cheapest: no.
You can get an iTouch for less and if you really want to go cheap you buy an old PDA and use SlimControl.

aubuti
2009-12-28, 22:55
To get a 100-step volume control I now know as options: iPhone/iPeng, SB Touch and SB controller. The last one is the cheapest and the most obvious choice. Or does anybody here have alternatives?
Add to that list SB Radio and SB3/Classic.

kidstypike
2009-12-29, 02:45
Hello aubuti,

To get a 100-step volume control I now know as options: iPhone/iPeng, SB Touch and SB controller. The last one is the cheapest and the most obvious choice. Or does anybody here have alternatives?

Moose!

Locuth
2010-01-12, 19:38
I'm trying.
But I'm not sure Apple will let me do the WiFi setup logic since I have to use stuff that is not allowed on App Store for that.
It also means shutting down all other communication so it's a bit of a difficult thing to do from a program logic POV.
So maybe it will only work for wired receivers.

Hail windows mobile ^^. No limitations as to the Wifi features here.

SlimControl (version 1.3) will hopefully be able to set up SqueezeBoxes without a controller.

Why does Apple limit Wifi functionality ?

pippin
2010-01-14, 10:17
Why does Apple limit Wifi functionality ?

Because they don't want to find their user in a situation where an App connects the WiFi network to whatever and you can't get back to your own network.
I can also imagine quite a few quite severe security issues if you can do that kind of thing.