Apologies if this subject has been chewed over in the past. I have
looked around in the forums here but see mostly micro detail rather
than the big picture.
I am looking to move to PC-based audio and have been researching how
best to do this. The Slim Devices Transporter seems to be a great
clarkc wrote:
Apologies if this subject has been chewed over in the past. I have
looked around in the forums here but see mostly micro detail rather
than the big picture.
I am looking to move to PC-based audio and have been researching how
best to do this. The Slim Devices Transporter seems
Are you using the Web interface or the remote control? Softsqueeze does
have an on-screen version of the remote.
I agree that the interface isn't wonderful in either version, but I
suspect you are using the Web browser, which is really best used only
for initial settings. Skins are only relevant
If you're serious enough about your audio quality to buy a Transporter
it's unlikely you'll have a PC in your listening room, so you'll use
the remote (especially considering the Transporter's dual screens). The
remote and dual LCD screens are superb.
The default web skin is really embarrasing
Perhaps Slimdevices could upgrade the SB3/Transporter firmware to
include UPnP MediaServer ControlPoint capability to give users a choice
of which MediaServer to use?
--
amcluesent
amcluesent's Profile:
Many thanks for the comments.
That's a very superficial analysis, but I agree that SD should work on
a better stand alone front end app to satisfy people who want their
software to look as good as their hardware.
Perhaps my analysis is superficial but I stand by my main conclusion.
It seems
My view is that the main UI is very intuitive and very well thought out
and implemented. It doesn't use the web front end though, it uses the
remote.
--
Fifer
Fifer's Profile:
As to the web browser interface, of course clarkc is right.
As to the main SB interface, it is intuitive and handy, but of course
clarkc is right that the Sonos is much more polished. (And of course
he's right that the well, then buy a Sonos attitude is a typical
response on this board.)
The Transporter's main UI, the remote, is superb. Once you get the hang
of it, you'll see how good it is. Don't forget that you can customize
the menus and you can download plugins like Lazy search and song
scanner.
Now I never tried the SONOS's remote, but I wouldn't say its more
polished. Its
UI design is a tricky thing, especially when you're trying to create a
flexible solution for different kinds of users. Fortunately SlimServer
is a pretty flexible product.
I don't see a native Windows/Mac/*NIX front end being that useful
honestly, you can get most of the functionality and live
qirex;183140 Wrote:
UI design is a tricky thing, especially when you're trying to create a
flexible solution for different kinds of users. Fortunately SlimServer
is a pretty flexible product.
That's why we need a pro.
I don't see a native Windows/Mac/*NIX front end being that useful
To the OP, I say, Hear, hear! The web UI is not what it should be,
and I trust Slim Devices or Streaming Media or whomever is making
improvements. My situation is a little different than most. My SB3 is
in the den with my stereo, where I do my serious listening, but it also
feeds my
Nostromo;183144 Wrote:
That's why we need a pro.
They should go the slimfx route.
Sorry to disagree but flash isn't the be all end all you're suggesting,
and I'm generally a big proponent of it. IMO its biggest asset is as a
browser equalizer. I.e. if people can't see the movie, they have
I can see a lot of ways to make pretty big
improvements without compromising the experience for existing users.
Please tell us. If it's getting technical you might want to open a new
thread in the developpers forum.
Too bad that job posting wasn't there 6 months ago.
Volunteers are always
clarkc;183072 Wrote:
But now to my question: For a $2000 device, are Slim Devices serious
about the user interface?
I have spent time downloading Slim Server software and have tried it
out briefly with SoftSqueeze to see how it works. IMHO it seems more
like something produced by an
Don't get me wrong, SlimFX looks great- but so does nokia and touch,
and fishbone
But they're far from the least common denominator: Fishbone needs a large
screen, and all of them use a lot of JavaScript - which requires a very
recent browser.
I think that as well as these skins a Flash
Skunk;183156 Wrote:
Don't get me wrong, SlimFX looks great- but so does nokia and touch, and
fishbone and default for that matter. I prefer things designed to
standards, so feel the ideal default web interface would scale to
devices without manually having to switch skins- and of course
Hi,
I have been using the default Slimserver webinterface as only way of
control for some time now. I am running an Ubuntu 1000MHZ VIA EPIA
server and I feel that the web UI is wery responsive both when playing
FLAC and streaming audio. There are some bugs but I still consider it
stable. I don't
Its a catch 22. If you want something thats easy then the design has to
be simple enough for even those that don't understand how everything
works to use it. Thats why the WaveRadio sells well. The problem is
that a lot of people, who want superior performance, will not take the
time to
Michael Herger;183175 Wrote:
Don't get me wrong, SlimFX looks great- but so does nokia and touch,
and fishbone
But they're far from the least common denominator: Fishbone needs a
large
screen, and all of them use a lot of JavaScript - which requires a very
recent browser.
I
I've been bleating on about this for a while now. I agree with the OP.
One thing I've always been surprised about is that the Slim approach is
to be open; yet around the interface it's taken that the limited remote
control and monochrome display is all one will want.
I've built set top boxes
21 matches
Mail list logo
