Well, nobody has tried Transporter yet outside of SD, so of course this is all speculation.On 8/6/06, rhyzome
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:If you don't already own a TV capable of accepting a PC input $400 would
get a decent 20 monitor retail - cheaper with rebates, etc. Seen FrontRow on 20 monitor
Mitch Harding Wrote:
Well, nobody has tried Transporter yet outside of SD, so of course this
is all speculation.
Right. We can look at pictures and talk about the look, but no one can
really say anything about the sound of it so far, or how the two
screens will work, together or separately, or
If you don't already own a TV capable of accepting a PC input $400 would
get a decent 20 monitor retail - cheaper with rebates, etc. Seen Front
Row on 20 monitor (heck, even a 17 monitor)? Blows the snot out of SB
visibility.
My Fireface is mounted around the side of the rack towards the rear as
If you don't already own a TV capable of accepting a PC input $400 would
get a decent 20 monitor retail - cheaper with rebates, etc. Seen Front
Row on 20 monitor (heck, even a 17 monitor)? Blows the snot out of SB
visibility / navigability (sic)
My Fireface is mounted around the side of the rack
radish Wrote:
Well in that case I misunderstood, but that also negates any price
difference- the Fireface 800 is $1500 on it's own.
The 400 is $1000. I overspecced.
--
rhyzome
rhyzome's Profile:
I think the SB's plus point was its low price and audioserver bang for
the buck given the features. If you start making it an audiophile
component from the get go though, the glaring problems with navigation,
etc start becoming exposed. The Wheel MAY address some of those issues,
but the encoder
rhyzome Wrote:
The Wheel MAY address some of those issues, but the encoder doesn't
fully compensate for the lack of a 10-foot or multiline display, which
I think you need to be able to fulfil the purpose of navigation a large
library.
Hmm? I can easily read the display from 15 feet away
On 8/2/06, rhyzome
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't doubt the Transporter will work for some, but equally I think a
Mac Mini or a silenced MITX machine + RME Fireface 400 will give equally
good audio results combined with a higher degree of flexibility - for
significantly less money, if the
radish Wrote:
Not a chance. I'm not an audiophile by any stretch of the imagination,
but... just... no.
Any reason why?
The output from my Mini + Fireface (800) goes into the dCS Elgar Plus,
clocked by the Verona. It gives generally as good a result as I've ever
heard out of a transport
Mark Lanctot Wrote:
Hmm? I can easily read the display from 15 feet away (and I wear
glasses) plus it is a multiline display (2 lines).
Also with the new 2-display Transporter, you may be able to stretch
text over both displays, which would make the text width at least as
wide as you'd
radish Wrote:
Not a chance. I'm not an audiophile by any stretch of the imagination,
but... just... no.
Any reason why?
The output from my Mini + Fireface (800) goes into the dCS Elgar Plus,
clocked by the Verona. It gives generally as good a result as I've ever
heard out of a transport
rhyzome Wrote:
The output from my Mini + Fireface (800) goes into the dCS Elgar Plus,
clocked by the Verona. It gives generally as good a result as I've ever
heard out of a transport (including the Verdi La Scala sitting on the
top of my stack, which is actually used these days only to play
rhyzome Wrote:
As for 15 17 monitors or whatever, there's this thing called a TV in
most people's living rooms, or in my case an ultra-quiet LCD panel.
That's what my Mini is hooked up to and I don't have to squint at all
to look at that.
I have indeed heard of a TV, thanks for the
On 8/2/06, radish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You say yourself that the La Scala is better
than the mini, it's simply my opinion that whilst the mini may well be
-good enough- (and probably would be for me, given the rest of my
system) I'd be amazed if it were -as good- as the Transporter - or even
rhyzome Wrote:
I think the SB's plus point was its low price and audioserver bang for
the buck given the features. If you start making it an audiophile
component from the get go though, the glaring problems with navigation,
etc start becoming exposed.
I strongly disagree. I've used
Jacob Potter Wrote:
On 8/2/06, radish radish.2bxkpz1154552401 (AT) no-mx (DOT)
forums.slimdevices.com wrote:
You say yourself that the La Scala is better
than the mini, it's simply my opinion that whilst the mini may well
be
-good enough- (and probably would be for me, given the rest of
I think this man has a valid point.
Masterbaron Wrote:
SD is truly a responsive company
SD has addressed most of the audiophile Mods..
SD has addressed the long sought-after form factor..
SD had addressed the blessed knob..
SD has addressed potential sound quality..dac, ps, etc.
--
Heh, was just a joke, kdf.. the year of testing was just too much of a
straight line and Microsoft is always such an easy target. Slimserver
even keeps most of the planned features.
But, really it's not like Slimserver is being used to guide the space
shuttle... The guessed timeline of Radish
dangerous_dom Wrote:
You can argue all you like about DAC's, remotes and power suplies, but
what will really make or break this product is Slimserver. I dont care
what anyone says, it's not looking too hot right now where i am
sitting. I have tried so many 6.5's in the last few days and i am
On 27-Jul-06, at 11:16 PM, snarlydwarf wrote:
Heh, was just a joke, kdf..
yup...me too
the year of testing was just too much of a
straight line and Microsoft is always such an easy target. Slimserver
even keeps most of the planned features.
yeah, but not the only only target.
But,
radish Wrote:
6.5 is not even in beta, it's in development.
On the download page is says,
# 6.5b1 - This is the latest alpha pre-release (yes, we really mean it)
development version of SlimServer.
I thought Aplha was a more advanced stage than beta?
Sorry, my bad.
Then why still use
Dom:
An alpha release in software is more tentative, more developmental than
a beta release.
From the greek letters alpha, beta, gamma, delta.
Corresponding roughly to A, B, C/G, D.
I guess you'd have to say that the real release was the gamma.
Delta's are usually small incremental updates
dangerous_dom wrote:
I thought Aplha was a more advanced stage than beta?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_stage
- Marc
___
discuss mailing list
discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
dangerous_dom Wrote:
But the point still remains, that i really think SS will be the making
for breaking of the Transporter.
I have tried 6.3.0, 6.3.1, and several versions of 6.5b. Most are
'stable', but with broken features.
I actually do agree - that the software is key and that
For us poor SB3 owners the Transporter might be a blessing in
disguise. SD will be a bit more pressed to improve the quality and
reliability of the SS to meet the expectations of the Transporter
owners.
--
tamanaco
They should also consider the fact that if they give away an SB3 for use
before the Transporter starts shipping, they the person with a
transporter hits the problems with 6.3.1 and 6.5b, it could put them
off and that 30 refund policy might just start getting used.
--
dangerous_dom
Well Alright!!! SD is truly a responsive company - let's focus on the
positive...
SD has addressed most of the audiophile Mods..
SD has addressed the long sought-after form factor..
SD had addressed the blessed knob..
SD has addressed potential sound quality..dac, ps, etc.
Please consider these
I also think the current remote is fine basic remote. What I have been
looking for is an improvement on the basic. If you're using a Universal
Remote instead of the SB remote then you paid for a remote that you're
not using. (Believe me, SD factored their cost of the remote in the
final price of
On 7/27/06, tamanaco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also think the current remote is fine basic remote. What I have beenlooking for is an improvement on the basic. If you're using a Universal
Remote instead of the SB remote then you paid for a remote that you'renot using. (Believe me, SD factored
Ben Sandee Wrote:
What, like $1? Seriously, that remote control does impact the price of
a SB
very much at all. Ben
Using real cost analogy... for any of digital circuit components that
makes up the SB3... not many of the components add up to impact the
price of the SB that much either.
On 7/27/06, tamanaco [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ben Sandee Wrote: What, like $1?Seriously, that remote control does impact the price of
a SB very much at all. BenUsing real cost analogy... for any of digital circuit components thatmakes up the SB3... not many of the components add up to impact
You can argue all you like about DAC's, but what will really make or
break this product is Slimserver. i dont care what anyone says, it's
not looking too hot right now. I have tried some many 6.5's in the
laster few days and i am starting to lose the will to live. Bad
handling of CUE sheets,
If you don't care what anyone says, this will be a dull discussion!On 7/27/06, dangerous_dom
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:break this product is Slimserver. i dont care what anyone says, it's
not looking too hot right now. I have tried some many 6.5's in the
Mitch Harding Wrote:
If you don't care what anyone says, this will be a dull discussion!
On 7/27/06, dangerous_dom
dangerous_dom.2bmhvn1154035501 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com
wrote:
break this product is Slimserver. i dont care what anyone says, it's
not looking too hot
I agree SS has room for improvement. On the other hand, 6.3 is working fine for me. I had assumed that 6.5 was still in beta mode. Given that Transporter doesn't ship until September, I'd say that 6.5 still has some time to mature.
I'd prefer to see SS be more of an application than a web app, but
Ben Sandee Wrote:
I was responding specifically to your point that people are somehow
throwing
money down the toilet by being forced to buy a sub-par remote. The
truth is
that if SD added a higher end remote, people *would* need to pay for
it
(even if it were optional). However, the
dangerous_dom Wrote:
You can argue all you like about DAC's, remotes and power suplies, but
what will really make or break this product is Slimserver.
There are several pieces to this puzzle, but as dangerous_dom mentions,
the Slimserver is a critical piece. To charge 2K is fine as long as
Mitch Harding Wrote:
I'd prefer to see SS be more of an application than a web app, but I
can
understand the OS portability benefits of the current model. I'm on
the
fence.]
OS Portability is a major issue for many people. So for the server
itself, I find the current model find.
It may not be SS job, but I do agree that some people may feel entitled to a slicker UI if they paid $2000 for the player. Whether that is justified or not is, of course, debatable.On 7/27/06,
tomsi42 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mitch Harding Wrote: I'd prefer to see SS be more of an application
Mitch Harding Wrote:
I agree SS has room for improvement. On the other hand, 6.3 is working
fine
for me. I had assumed that 6.5 was still in beta mode. Given that
Transporter doesn't ship until September, I'd say that 6.5 still has
some
time to mature.
6.5 is not even in beta, it's in
Mitch Harding Wrote:
It may not be SS job, but I do agree that some people may feel entitled
to a
slicker UI if they paid $2000 for the player. Whether that is
justified or
not is, of course, debatable.
No problems with that.
I am not sure how to create the slicker UI though. Should it
Based on how I use my SB3, I'd love a UI that is similar to iTunes or WinAmp or such, where searching the library and building playlists is easier and faster. Ideally this would be OS agnostic, and also have a PDA/remote interface.
In practice, I think this is a tall order. And for me, it's not a
Mitch Harding Wrote:
Based on how I use my SB3, I'd love a UI that is similar to iTunes or
WinAmp
or such, where searching the library and building playlists is easier
and
faster. Ideally this would be OS agnostic, and also have a PDA/remote
interface.
Agree.
Mitch Harding Wrote:
radish Wrote:
6.5 is not even in beta, it's in development. It will break, it will
have bugs and it will be unusable for much of the time. If you're using
it, well good luck - now you know what to expect. To criticize an
application based on a pre-beta dev build of a future version is absurd
mbonsack Wrote:
From a software development standpoint, then, SS is at extreme risk for
not making the Sept 18 deadline. The software should be in beta with
only 50 or so days left before release. Though I'm happy with 6.3.x and
not using 6.5, from the traffic in these forums it looks like
radish Wrote:
On the other hand, some companies can spend a year or more in public
beta and still produce a sub-par end result.
:: cough :: Vista :: cough ::
--
snarlydwarf
snarlydwarf's Profile:
On 27-Jul-06, at 10:11 PM, snarlydwarf wrote:
radish Wrote:
On the other hand, some companies can spend a year or more in public
beta and still produce a sub-par end result.
:: cough :: Vista :: cough ::
just as bad as what ppl are doing here. can't really slag a release
that isn't
radish Wrote:
Thanks all :) I didn't mean to hijack the thread! But yes, weddings
are expensive, particularly when they're in NYC. It's not going to be
particularly extravagent in the grand scheme of things, but with 100
people @ $200 a head (plus tax tip!), a dress, a honeymoon, a
radish Wrote:
I am very pleased to be able to confirm the cheesy DJ will be replaced
by a laptop a squeezebox with a bunch of custom playlists.
Hey!
Some of us non-cheesy DJs (who DJ with a laptop and an SB1) object
strenuously :-)
--
Michaelwagner
radish Wrote:
What I'm looking at now is how to add an idiot-proof jukebox style
browser so people can choose tunes themselves and have them added to
the queue.
Have you looked at Moose? I haven't looked at it in a while but it
seemed not bad last I looked.
--
Michaelwagner
radish Wrote:
I know. I'm one myself :) But for what we have planned a human just
isn't required. What I'm looking at now is how to add an idiot-proof
jukebox style browser so people can choose tunes themselves and have
them added to the queue.
Congrats radish and congrats to SD on the new
radish Wrote:
That's a bargain. I thought I was getting the cheap option by only
shelling out $20 for a months membership of match.com and now I'm
having to find $40k for a wedding! That's 20 transporters! Damn. Time
to reevaluate priorities...
Your scaring me man! I proposed two weeks ago,
radish Wrote:
What I'm looking at now is how to add an idiot-proof jukebox style
browser so people can choose tunes themselves and have them added to
the queue.
Like a Windows Media Player interface where you can drag songs to the
Squeezebox queue?
--
shabbs
[shabbs]
*iPod:* 4G [40GB] |
I actually got married on my lunch hour, then went back to work. How's
that for romance?
Still, it's one of the greatest days of my life; a happy memory, a few
cherished photos, and a wonderful life together.
Priceless.
--
Pale Blue Ego
radish Wrote:
Something along those lines yes. I used to use Meedio (RIP) on a HTPC
and that had a great party mode which allowed you to browse (by name or
artwork) and add to the queue, and nothing else. Utterly idiot proof and
nice to look at.
It would be cool if WMP could integrate like
There's absolutely no reason that a skin couldn't be built specifically
for kiosk/jukebox mode. In fact, this has me thinking that maybe I'll
build it into Touch/Nokia770 as an option.
Basically all it would do is, if jukebox mode is selected (through
server settings), remove a bunch of the
Very cool idea. Should you still be able to change the order of the
songs in the queue (move up/move down)?
--
shabbs
[shabbs]
*iPod:* 4G [40GB] | *OS:* Windows XP Pro SP2 | *iPod audio:* Sony '
MDR-EX71SL'
i wonder what music out there actually takes advantage of a $2k piece of
transporting hardware?
i wonder if anyone would bother to take a double blind test b4 forking
over that kind of dough?
i've been dating my other squeezebox for 5 years, and i'm still
blindly testing the waters.
i listen
I must be the only one who finds the current SB remote to be fine. It does what it needs to do in order for me to enjoy the SB. Sure, if they made a souped up remote I might be interested, but I have no complaints with the existing one.
On 7/26/06, MrSinatra [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:i wonder what
Mitch Harding Wrote:
I must be the only one who finds the current SB remote to be fine. It
does
what it needs to do in order for me to enjoy the SB. Sure, if they
made a
souped up remote I might be interested, but I have no complaints with
the
existing one.
No, you're not the only one.
Michaelwagner Wrote:
The first year I had the box, I only ever used the remote to flash the
Prom. I kinda forgot it was there. I only ever used the web interface.
Now that I think about it, between my SB2 and my SB3, I only use one
remote. I used the first remote to program the universal and
I bought one white SB3.
About 6 months later I noticed, on the picture on the web site, that
the white SB3 comes with a white remote. Sure enough, I looked in the
box, there it was unused. I'd never noticed it was white. Never took it
out of the box.
Saved on batteries, I guess.
--
I think the current remote is fine. I know it so well I use it in total
darkness with no problems. It's an extension of my hand, actually.
--
Pale Blue Ego
Pale Blue Ego's Profile:
Pale Blue Ego Wrote:
I am also very interested in seeing how this flies with the high-end
community. I think this could be the machine that pushes computer
audio into the audiophile mainstream
Me too, but I think those displays are a mistake. Many audiophiles
dislike anything other than
I echo similar concerns. While it looks very slick, the multiple
buttons and screen dominating the front makes this look less serious
than a typical high end device.
Coming from the Naim school of thought..
CardinalFang Wrote:
Me too, but I think those displays are a mistake. Many
Very good. When is it going to be reviewed by Stereophile? :)
I'm starting saving money... no ice cream for me anymore...
Interesting, if I'd connect it and SB3 to the same outboard DAC, how
much difference in SQ should I expect? Beyond the new features, how
different the digital section in
agentsmith Wrote:
I echo similar concerns. While it looks very slick, the multiple
buttons and screen dominating the front makes this look less serious
than a typical high end device.
Also, I really wish that there was a transport-only option. The price
point is fair for what's inside, but
awetmore Wrote:
I like the form factor and the front panel buttons and knob. I don't
need the three power supplies, gold plated circuit board, and other
audiophile features. I wish there was a $400 version that looked
roughly like this with a knob and buttons and a single display.
CardinalFang Wrote:
Also, I really wish that there was a transport-only option. The price
point is fair for what's inside, but a lot of that is unnecessary
clutter and stuff that will never get used in my view - I don't need a
DAC, two displays, a fancy wheel and all those buttons, what I
I think it's an exciting development and I'm seriously considering
whether I can justify it or not (a lot depends on the UK pricing). I
have to confess to being a wee bit disappointed that the pre-order
promo appears to be firmly targeted at new customers only, as most
existing customers are more
CardinalFang Wrote:
Also, I really wish that there was a transport-only option.
If you don't need the on-board DAC I doubt you will see a signnificant
benefit that will justify the outlay - no doubt someone will eventually
do a high end SB3 +DAC vs Transporter comparison...maybe me in 6
ajmitchell Wrote:
Are you sure about this? Lets wait for confirmation
Alex
I think it says it here
http://www.slimdevices.com/pi_transporter.html
at the end of the paragraph 'Astounding Analog'...
In addition, Transporter's digital inputs allow its built-in DAC to be
used with other
rickwookie Wrote:
I don't understand what you mean when you say transport-only option.
Surely if you don't need a DAC then a squeezebox IS that option. This
product is a serious DAC with a squeezebox built in.
Yes, but the SB3 form factor isn't right for me and it doesn't have a
linear PSU
CardinalFang Wrote:
it isn't in the same box as the audio components and therefore
potentially affecting audio quality. You can argue whether it does or
not, but if there was no display in the transporter and instead it was
on a remote, then it definitely wouldn't be degrading audio.
I
rickwookie Wrote:
I think they've probably gone out of their way to ensure that there is
no noise from the display
I'm sure they have, but the audiophile community is pretty picky about
stuff like that and you have to convince them that 2 displays are a
good move in a high-end player. Be
I'm pretty sure SD people got ready for complaints regarding the
direction their design is heading - there is no high fidelity device on
earth that wouldn't produce at least some negative comments. That's just
perfectly normal.
I'm not interested in built-in DAC either, unless it confirmed to
I love my various SB's and with some effort, have gotten a reasonable
WAF. But the one factor that continues to be a problem is the display.
As good as it is, (especially compared to other devices), it can't show
long album/track names without scrolling.
Yes, I know you can shrink the font, but
Congratulations - this isn't for me (theres no way I could drop that much on a player) but it's a supurb product. With the stable, fast, Slimserver (lets hope) that is promised by 6.5 this will redefine the market.
I've never been a great fan of the industrial design of the squeezebox in either
Simon Still Wrote:
Even the remote looks a cut above (and much more of a match for the SB3
than
the current model - after market upgrade anyone?)
Agreed... but can the new remote work with SB3 .. would assume so..
can slim release better pics of the remote .. plus images with the
ajmitchell Wrote:
Are you sure about this? Lets wait for confirmation
Yes, on the detailed specs page it lists inputs to the dac.
Digital Outputs and Inputs
Optical, coax, BNC, and XLR digital connectors
Word clock input for synchronization with an external clock
Linear-regulated power
pfarrell Wrote:
Not at all. It is aimed at audiophiles and they regularly spend
unimaginable amounts of money.
The Audiophile magazines regularly review turntables that cost
$10,000, and a favorite costs $75,000.
You're just not the target market.
You got that I right I'm not the
Face it. We're not the target market. It hurts but it's possible to get
past it.
--
Michaelwagner
Michaelwagner's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=428
View this thread:
CardinalFang Wrote:
I think it will have a tough time against an SB3 plus a $1500 DAC. OK,
so you can use the Transport DAC for other inputs, but audiophiles will
most likely already have a DAC at this price point.
Thinking about it some more, I'm really disappointed. I'm in the
bprager Wrote:
I love my various SB's and with some effort, have gotten a reasonable
WAF. But the one factor that continues to be a problem is the display.
As good as it is, (especially compared to other devices), it can't show
long album/track names without scrolling.
Yes, I know you can
tamanaco Wrote:
I want a Wi-Fi/IR/RF SB Universal remote to be the center piece of my
AV system as it would be only component that'd need to interact from
anywhere I sit in my one bedroom NYC apartment. I'm sure it would make
the place seem bigger than it really is... I can already see
dangerous_dom Wrote:
I have no doubt there is a market for this, but one thing is for sure;
they will really have to sort out SlimServer. I love it, but it has
faults and bugs. Those bugs are annoying with the SB3, but if i had
forked out $2000 (plus the other few grand for app/speakers to
EnochLight wrote:
Am I the only one that has a major issue with this equipment costing
$2000?
I'm all about the new design and hardware, but... all of us knowing how
much it costs to build a high-end PC from scratch, even with a quality
soundcard and huge flat panel display... I feel that $2K
CardinalFang wrote:
As I said a clean-looking, uncluttered standard sized audio component
with a graphical remote control. The transport would not have a DAC,
but would have high grade power supplies, components and socketry. With
it I'd want a Sonos-like remote so I can browse music from where
Marc Sherman Wrote:
Slim needs to come out with a snap on front plate that locks over top
of
the transporters front panel, hiding the displays, buttons, and the
knob. All it needs is a logo painted on and an extension lens for the
IR
receiver. Since it's an audiophile accessory, they
Skunk Wrote:
Tx
It's $2,000 and I can't drive it?
Judging by the name, it appears a future firmware update will allow you
to use the unit to demolecularize yourself and move to any other user's
station where there is a similar transporter unit.
So driving is redundant!
-- Martin
--
mschiff Wrote:
Judging by the name, it appears a future firmware update will allow you
to use the unit to demolecularize yourself and move to any other user's
station where there is a similar transporter unit.
So driving is redundant!
-- Martin
You are talking a device called Stargate
Marc Sherman Wrote:
Obviously, you're nowhere near the target market. I'm not either. I'm
pretty sure SD's marketing department know what they're doing here.
In the BBC article today, Slim noted that 20% of their customers are
audiophiles. It makes a lot of sense for them to cater to this
CardinalFang Wrote:
Yes, but the SB3 form factor isn't right for me and it doesn't have a
linear PSU or professional socketry. I wanted an Audiophile SB3, not a
DAC with a squeezebox thrown in. I already have a very good DAC - and
it doesn't have all those displays and buttons I don't need
SuperQ Wrote:
Except that A/B scope comparisons by Sean prove that the linear power
supply does nothing to the DAC jitter.
I'd say they suggest it strongly but don't prove anything, and even
then only in SB3. It is a fact that power supply noise contributes to
jitter, but the degree may well
seanadams Wrote:
I'd say they suggest it strongly but don't prove anything, and even then
only in SB3. It is a fact that power supply noise contributes to
jitter, but the degree may well be negligible depending on the
circumstances.
Sorry, I should have just linked to the original post
mherger Wrote:
Now the term Transporter is awfully long to type so it won't be
long
before people start abbreviating it. Let's come up with a suitable
abbreviation right here...
Model T? Hmm... was once used for ... the first affordable
automobile.
--
Michael
Compared to high-end audio equipment, $2K is a stone-cold bargain,
especially with components like that. Ever looked at Linn equipment?
Bryston amplifiers? BW speakers? Even the Denon 5805 and 4806
receivers that everyone seems to have.
Heck, I just got back from an appointment with a dating
Mark Lanctot Wrote:
Heck, I just got back from an appointment with a dating service today
and they wanted to charge me $2500.
If I suggest that you leave your PC and SB and get out more... and it
succeeds... will you pay me $2,500?
MC
--
ModelCitizen
Squeezebox2 Benchmark Dac1 Naim NAC
The thing about this audiophile stuff is that you can train yourself to
hear perceived imperfections. Your ears become golden (sic). It's
annoying when you get into it 'cos it's hard to be satisfied. It's very
easy to get lost (i.e. extreme detail versus immediately attractive
sound etc).
The
ModelCitizen Wrote:
If I suggest that you leave your PC and SB and get out more... and it
succeeds... will you pay me $2,500?
MC
Ahh...no. :-)
But after my shock at those prices, the Transporter immediately leapt
to mind. It's interesting, it didn't look all that much yesterday, but
when
1 - 100 of 171 matches
Mail list logo
