Another option would be to go to a skinnier (and possibly shorter) font
if the whole title can't fit. This could be automatic or it could be a
user option (along with a choice to scroll or truncate if the skinny
font still won't fit).
--
bruce
Bandraginus;495705 Wrote:
But the good news is that Logitech only need to do one simple thing to
solve the problem. They need to sell the Receiver (from the Duet
package) as a separate entity.
What probably makes more sense would be to re-jig the Receiver with the
Touch internals (ie. omit
Bandraginus;495705 Wrote:
But the good news is that Logitech only need to do one simple thing to
solve the problem. They need to sell the Receiver (from the Duet
package) as a separate entity.
It's even simpler than you may think, because they have been doing
exactly that since shortly after
aubuti;495405 Wrote:
Standard fonts on the SB3: Stuck Inside of Mobile with the Me (34
characters incl spaces)
Large fonts on the SBT: Stuck Inside of Mobile w (24 characters incl
spaces)
Cool, thanks again. According to a quick statistic of my music library
16% of the track titles are
I've just come onto this thread, so please excuse me for re-hashing old
territory here.
I believe that the original poster of this thread is mostly right.
Just about everybody on this thread has said that the Touch is a great
piece of kit and will enhance the product line. It's a great
Bandraginus;495705 Wrote:
...
So, with the Duet, the Touch, and the Receiver as separate products,
their product line-up would be fantastic and good for just about every
location (of course, including the Boom for bedrooms, etc).
I agree.
I'd also make sure that the concept of great DA
Bandraginus;495705 Wrote:
However there's one big problem. See, everybody says that the Touch
is/will be great for controlling all the other players in the house.
But with the current line-up, there are NO generic players! They just
scrapped what most people used as a generic player.
The Receiver is still available at logitech.com for $149.99.
--
bruce
bruce's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2955
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72534
maggior;495714 Wrote:
Did I miss something? Did Logitech drop the squeezebox receiver? I've
read that they are becoming harder to find, but I haven't seen an
announcement about it. Now that I look, I see it isn't listed in the
product matrix. Hmmm...
It's never been listed seperately in
I agree that in many scenarios the touch screen is irrelevant. (Both my
Classics are behind glass.) I hope that either the touch functionality
is not expensive to include (does anyone know?) or Logitech will
eventually introduce a cheaper non-touch version.
I personally would like a Non-Touch
bruce wrote:
I agree that in many scenarios the touch screen is irrelevant. (Both my
Classics are behind glass.) I hope that either the touch functionality
is not expensive to include (does anyone know?) or Logitech will
eventually introduce a cheaper non-touch version.
Touch screens are
pfarrell;495076 Wrote:
The Touch is much more
than a Classic with a touch screen. Its a computer. Its not really a
slim device as it can do things like read music off of a thumb or
even
external disk drive. For folks who already have a SlimServer, the
ability of the Touch to work as a
bruce;495081 Wrote:
I don't understand the configurations and usage scenarios you're
anticipating will be a godsend. How many people carry music around on
thumb drives as opposed to MP3 players (which don't need a Touch to play
through a stereo)? Will people buy an external drive to store
bruce Wrote:
Will people buy an external drive to store their music rather than
running SlimServer on a PC, and if so, how will they add music to it,
and will the drive be accessible throughout their network?
Yes they will. They can add music to it via a Samba network share or by
plugging
Are you saying that if you have a Touch with an external drive attached
to it, the Touch will function as a server for other Squeezeboxes on
your network? Or can only Touches on your network access that drive?
How would you perform the functions that are currently part of server
management? Are
bruce;495095 Wrote:
Are you saying that if you have a Touch with an external drive attached
to it, the Touch will function as a server for other Squeezeboxes on
your network? Or can only Touches on your network access that drive?
All players. But with some limitations, such as no web
bruce;495095 Wrote:
Are you saying that if you have a Touch with an external drive attached
to it, the Touch will function as a server for other Squeezeboxes on
your network? Or can only Touches on your network access that drive?
How would you perform the functions that are currently part
If Logitech could market the Squeezebox line as not requiring a server
to play one's music collection, just an external hard drive (which they
could even sell as an option) connected to a Touch, and all the server
functions could be handled by a combination of the Touch, the other
players, and
bruce;495103 Wrote:
If Logitech could market the Squeezebox line as not requiring a server
to play one's music collection, just an external hard drive (which they
could even sell as an option) connected to a Touch, and all the server
functions could be handled by a combination of the Touch,
Touch advantages over SB3:
- color display (album art on player)
- touch screen
- USB input (used as a server or quick Plug Play usage)
- built in server (with limitations)
- 24/96 support
- better DAC
- acts as a Controller for all other SB players
For 1/3 more cost than today's close
usch;495041 Wrote:
I personally would have preferred a decent 7 display without the touch
capabilities. After all, it comes with a remote (unlike the Radio), and
the Classic did not have any buttons either.
You nailed it. I guess the touch capability is the kind of gimmick that
sells stuff -
squeez-er;495158 Wrote:
This whole thing actually started when I considered giving SB as a
christmas present and then noticed the price difference (not to mention
the fact that right now I can't buy a Squeezebox without speakers at
all!). But as always, this is just my opinion.
Duet??
all
squeez-er;495158 Wrote:
The fact that something is old is a bad excuse to make something new. I
don't care if it's old - I only care if it works. And it does exactly
what I want from my wifi music player to do - play music and show what's
playing even when I'm further away.
It may be a bad
pfarrell;495043 Wrote:
I have not tried mine at a typical living room distance. For example, my
Transporter is about 15 feet from my favorite listening chair. But other
beta testers claim that it is easily read at 10 feet or so. I don't have
10 feet long 3 meters to our euro-zone friends),
usch;495168 Wrote:
I am not so much worried about the readability (the font seems
sufficiently big), just about the amount of text that can be displayed
without scrolling. I have set all my SBs to Scroll once and stop
because I find the constant movement in the corner of my eye somewhat
squeez-er;495158 Wrote:
..
The fact that I now need to pay much more for things I don't need still
remains however. 300 euros is right on the edge of being WAY too much
for a device like SB's. This whole thing actually started when I
considered giving SB as a christmas present
bruce;495103 Wrote:
So as long as you have one Touch on your network, most any player
(Touch, Receiver, Transporter, Boom, Radio, or SB3/2) on your network
can play music from any hard drive(s) on your network, without any
server running?
Not from -any- drive on the network, only from USB
aubuti;495176 Wrote:
You may already be aware of this, but just in case you're not, the
Touch's LCD is higher resolution than the SB2/SB3/Classic's.
Correct, but the pixel resolution is totally irrelevant when viewed
from the distance. I already cannot distinguish individual pixels on the
trouty00;495165 Wrote:
Duet??
I completely forgot that. But no, I wouldn't want to get the Duet
either because it doesn't have a screen and I have heard bad things
about the remote (last time from you ;)).
aubuti;495166 Wrote:
I think you still don't quite understand the feature. Plug an
usch;495192 Wrote:
..
I don't like the upright form factor of the Classic and the Touch - my
stereo rack is more than 10 deep, but there is only so much vertical
space left. My SB1 fits there neatly, as would an SB2, the Classic would
already look crammed in, and the Touch
usch;495192 Wrote:
.
If one of the reasons to discontinue the Classic was that the displays
are no longer made, couldn't they build a similar player around a
current one like this: '24064-CCFL'
(http://www.datasheetarchive.com/pdf-datasheets/Datasheets-27/DSA-534851.pdf)?
These
squeez-er;495201 Wrote:
I'm sure what you say is correct. It's just too bad that those who want
a player like SB3 (just a player with clear and large display) are left
out.Even if they buy the Touch, they are getting a smaller
display...
Many miss the simplicity of physical dials on car
squeez-er;495201 Wrote:
As much as I would love to believe that the Touch will 1/3
cheaper after a year, I can't. My guess would be 3 years.
Could be, though there was a recent 20% discount offered for Touch
pre-orders, dunno the details or if it was available to EU customers.
I guess
toby10;495212 Wrote:
Many miss the simplicity of physical dials on car radios. Technology
marches forward, get on board or be run over. :)
Lol, technology marches forward, but does it always march in the right
direction?
Like I said, many times new technology is developed and sold (and
toby10;495218 Wrote:
Could be, though there was a recent 20% discount offered for Touch
pre-orders, dunno the details or if it was available to EU customers.
I guess you and I will both be shopping in 3 years, you for the
discounted Touch, me for the discounted 3rd generation 64 gb iTouch.
usch;495197 Wrote:
Correct, but the pixel resolution is totally irrelevant when viewed from
the distance. I already cannot distinguish individual pixels on the
current VFD when I am more than five feet away, it's just the physical
size that counts here.
Interesting, that doesn't seem to
squeez-er;495219 Wrote:
Lol, technology marches forward, but does it always march in the right
direction?
Like I said, many times new technology is developed and sold (and
bought..) just because it's new. Doesn't mean it's better.
The thing is, I -don't- want todays tech (Touch)
squeez-er;495219 Wrote:
The thing is, I -don't- want todays tech (Touch) even if I could get it
at discounted price right now. The price isn't my biggest problem, the
features are. I'm willing to pay if I get something in return. The Touch
- for my use - is a step backwards.
I guess you're
bruce wrote:
running on a computer somewhere on the network, then that would truly be
a big step forward.
Its really, a big step forward.
--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/
___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
squeez-er wrote:
The fact that something is old is a bad excuse to make something new. I
don't care if it's old - I only care if it works. And it does exactly
what I want from my wifi music player to do - play music and show what's
playing even when I'm further away.
Er, you seem to be
toby10;495204 Wrote:
The nice thing about the Touch and SB3 is their light, small form factor
(thin client design). So light in fact, that like you I was limited on
AV rack space for my SB3, so I created a floating SB3 taking up no
space on the AV rack shelves. Using just a wire hanger and
usch;495249 Wrote:
Wasn't there a rumour about a wall mount for the Touch?
Yes, it exists. Though I don't think that would be much help inside an
AV cabinet in most instances.
--
toby10
toby10's Profile:
pfarrell;495243 Wrote:
Moore's law drives everything and it either drives the price of old
stuff to zero (bad for profits) or it drives the company to add new
features to use up all the power that Moore's law provides.
I had to learn that when I bought my first ink jet printer. I knew
exactly
(Touch Wall Mount)
toby10;495252 Wrote:
Yes, it exists. Though I don't think that would be much help inside an
AV cabinet in most instances.
Of course not -inside- the cabinet, but one could mount the Touch on
the wall next to it without the need for an extra shelf.
--
usch
usch;495264 Wrote:
Another thing I observed is that at the end of a product's life the
street price might even rise again. Kind of logical if you think about
it because the cheapest dealers will get rid of their stock first, but
surprising if you expect the price to gow down continually. So
pfarrell;495243 Wrote:
Er, you seem to be fighting the realities and economics of the consumer
electronic industry.
Can't blame me for trying :)
--
squeez-er
squeez-er's Profile:
usch;495266 Wrote:
Of course not -inside- the cabinet, but one could mount the Touch on the
wall next to it without the need for an extra shelf.
Yes, you could do that. But it's a recess mounting bracket, so then
you'd need to fiddle with getting the interconnects back out of the wall
to get
aubuti;495272 Wrote:
Yes, you could do that. But it's a recess mounting bracket, so then
you'd need to fiddle with getting the interconnects back out of the wall
to get to your amp. Here's some pics:
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=67420
Ah, yes, I forgot about the wires. :(
usch;495192 Wrote:
Not from -any- drive on the network, only from USB drives that are
directly connected to the Touch. ... I would really like to use it as a
standalone server, but its capabilities seem way too limited, given that
plugins are not fully supported and you already need a plugin
usch;495285 Wrote:
Ah, yes, I forgot about the wires. :(
Is it just me, or does anybody else agree that with the wall mount it
looks a lot like an electricity meter? :D
http://forums.slimdevices.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=8053stc=1d=1251998911
usch;495249 Wrote:
Which means you are essentially using the higher resolution to create a
smaller font. But if you want sufficiently big text (of the same
physical size on both devices) and read that from the distance, it makes
no difference whether that font is made of 24 or 32 pixels.
usch;495249 Wrote:
Great, thanks. I see you have the track time in the bottom row which
uses up some space. If you move that to the top row like I have and use
the entire bottom row for the title, according to the photo I'd guess
that you can show a text that is more than twice as long on
I bought my Squeezebox Classic some 6 months ago when the Radio and
Touch weren't reality yet. Since then, I have been a happy user of my
Classic with QNAP TS-239 working as a server and would recommend this
setup easily for anyone asking.
These days when I go to look at the current lineup of
squeez-er wrote:
I bought my Squeezebox Classic some 6 months ago when the Radio and
Touch weren't reality yet. Since then, I have been a happy user of my
Classic with QNAP TS-239 working as a server and would recommend this
setup easily for anyone asking.
There doesn't seem to be a direct
Thanks for the reply.
pfarrell;494938 Wrote:
The Touch is the replacement for the Classic, or will be once its
released. The price will be set by the market when its released and
available.
The price will first be set by the manufacturer, then after some time
it will drop on the market.
squeez-er;494945 Wrote:
The price will first be set by the manufacturer, then after some time
it will drop on the market. How much depends on many factors. The
current price that I have seen for the Touch is around 300 which is 1/3
more than Classic.
The Classic is discontinued... so, is
snarlydwarf;494948 Wrote:
The Classic is discontinued... so, is it a surprise it is cheaper?
The MSRP is identical.
Sorry I forgot to mention that I didn't compare the discontinued
price to the Touch. When I bought the classic (while it was still under
production) I paid 200 for it.
squeez-er;494952 Wrote:
Sorry I forgot to mention that I didn't compare the discontinued price
to the Touch. When I bought the classic (while it was still under
production) I paid 200 for it.
Didn't know the MSRP was indentical, thanks for the info.
But then again, that doesn't really
squeez-er;494945 Wrote:
Would it be a good idea to tell how it's better on the Squeezebox
website rather than having to read the forums?
You're assuming that visitors to the web site are familiar with past
products. Logitech isn't at all concerned about those customers.
They'll make their
pfarrell;494938 Wrote:
The display on the Classic has been the problem, its expensive and has
been End-of-life'd by its manufacturer.
Unfortunately the width of the Touch display is only about 60% of the
Classic, which means it will require much more scrolling to display the
same amount of
usch wrote:
Unfortunately the width of the Touch display is only about 60% of the
Classic, which means it will require much more scrolling to display the
same amount of text. All the more when there are touch screen buttons at
the same time and you want to show the cover artwork, too.
I think
61 matches
Mail list logo
