Slashdot Mirror


Hardware Review: Rio Receiver

Along with the Rio Central we reviewed here yesterday, SonicBlue sent us a Rio Receiver for review. This is a bare bones audio terminal: no local storage. Instead it feeds from either your windows PC, or from the Rio Central. It aims to let you put your tunes wherever you have HPNA or Ethernet. And unlike its expensive big brother, this thing is priced to reasonably for people who want either multizone audio, or just to stream audio from their PC to stereo.

Props to Robo for testing the Windows stuff for me, and CowboyNeal for testing it with the Rio Central. They wrote much of this review. I just cleaned it up and took credit for it.

The Rio Reciever doesn't bother with ripping CDs or creating MP3 files of its own, it streams them from either a Rio Central, or a Windows box with their software installed. Either method allows you to setup playlists which are then accessed from the Rio Reciever.

Hooking speakers up to the receiver is easy. It has bare wire outputs for going directly to speakers, RCA outputs for use in a stereo rack, and a plain old headphone out that's suitable for most powered PC speakers. That's a lot of outputs, but it means that it's easy to use in a variety of situations, which is exactly what you want out of a device like this.

The reciever can reach its source through either an HPNA jack, or an ethernet jack. Hooking up the Rio Reciever via ethernet was fairly simple, provided a compatible server is already on the same subnet. The receiver finds an available IP address- although it seemed to ignore our DHCP server and actually took our routers IP once! This isn't a fatal flaw, but you may wanna double check when you set this thing up to make sure you don't get any surprises.

The interface on the front of the box takes a little getting used to. Menu items are selected from menus by a large dial, and confirmed by pushing the dial. (which also functions as a large button) While compact, I found that all too often I'd accidentally push the dial in while trying to turn it. Eventually I had to give up and stick with the remote control which didn't have that problem.

Unfortunately, while the interface isn't bad, it's not great either. Given the sheer number of MP3s available to play, navigating through a huge list with just a dial isn't fun. If you've put the time into make playlists using either the Windows software or the Rio Central, then this is much easier. Of course you can search search on artist, album, genre, etc., but it gets more and more difficult as your MP3 collection gets larger.

The screen on the receiver leaves a lot to be desired. Unless it's at eye level at a distance of six feet or less, don't bother trying to read it. Luckily once the player is rolling, there's little reason to bother looking at it. When first installing, I got a neck ache from trying to read it while it sat on my desk, but once up and running, I became oblivious to it.

The Win98 software is very bare bones, but does what it's supposed to: import music. After installing the software and turning on the receiver, I was able to import both MP3 and WMA files.

The functionality of the Rio Receiver does not change between the Rio Central and a Win98 Machine, so for those who already own a windows PC, they can possibly save themselves the $1500 cost of a Rio Central. The Rio Receiver is priced around $170, and a couple discount places have already had them priced around $100, making it very feasible for the home audio enthusiast who has a large music collection on his computer to pop these small boxes around your home or office, letting you share your music wherever you want it.

The SliMP3 is less polished, but is fed with a simple perl program that streams audio. The Audiotron is fed with any Samba compatible server. In other words, either device can work with a Linux box. The Rio currently can't, but it is the only one that doesn't require an external amp to hook it up to speakers, making it the best choice for simple multizone applications. And it's priced a hundred bucks less!

All in all, this is a pretty neat device. I wish it had more ways to stream MP3s to it, since buying the costly Rio Central or converting my MP3 server to Windows aren't things I'd consider at this point, but for a lot of users I imagine the Windows software will be enough. Unlike many MP3 units, this one is priced reasonably. The variety of input and output options mean this thing can work for people who just want to get their MP3s into a stereo component, as well as for people wanting to create a nice multizone audio system in their house without needing a second mortgage.

231 comments

  1. When do we get MP3 recorders? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    there are lots of MP3 players around, but when are we going to get MP3 recorders a lá recordable portable minidisc?

    1. Re:When do we get MP3 recorders? by Steve+B · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      /. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
    2. Re:When do we get MP3 recorders? by Amarok.Org · · Score: 3, Informative

      Already here.

      www.archos.com

      --
      -- "Other than that, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln?"
    3. Re:When do we get MP3 recorders? by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      you've been aboe to buy mp3 recorders for years now. Most all radio stations have nice hardware stream generators (recorder basically)

      The problem with a regular "recorder" per-se is that you can build one that is better, faster and cheaper with a PC and a turtle-beach santa-cruz soundcard than anything they could build for you in a nice looks-like-my-cdplayer package.

      basically, buy a black desktop pc, put a burner in it, a IR keyboard/mouse, video out card and have your recorder.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:When do we get MP3 recorders? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a portable recorder. portable

    5. Re:When do we get MP3 recorders? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent - thankyou.

    6. Re:When do we get MP3 recorders? by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      Speaking as my sound engineer persona, I agree whole heartedly. However I want something about the size of a (portable!) minidisc recorder that I can get a DI from a mixing desk from for recording live gigs that I can also use as an MP3 player. I'd get minidisc but lets face it - moving parts are obsolete. The 6Gb model mentioned in another post I have seen - it would appear to be basically a 6Gb 3.5" HDD in a plastic case with an embedded OS. I'm sure it works very well however I wouldnt like to drop it! Anyone know of small, portable solid state MP3 recorders? Must be able to record preferably 160kbps but 128kbps would be acceptable. Ideally store onto removable media such as CF or MM cards.

  2. $100 by sulli · · Score: 1
    Now we're talking.

    I bet someone comes up with a way to get this thing to listen to linux, or shoutcast, or mac. I doubt it will be win only for long...

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
    1. Re:$100 by cowboy+junkie · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Jreceiver project takes care of the first two and this Perl server also fits the bill.

    2. Re:$100 by ryanr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Speaking of which, where can they be had for $100? I see $142 at Amazon (out of stock), and about $150-170 most other places.

    3. Re:$100 by Splat · · Score: 3, Informative

      Tigerdirect (whom aren't exactly known for great Customer Service - hell, they're reputation sucks) has had them for $100 for a few months now.

  3. You've got to tell them! by albeit+unknown · · Score: 3, Funny

    SonicBlue is made out of people!

  4. Wireless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When can I get one of these that can access my 802.11b network? I didn't feel like running ethernet all over my house, and I don't have a phone jack near my audio system. Considering the influx of consumer level wireless gateways, I would think there would be a large market for something like this.

  5. Useful or useless by moankey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Reminds me of those things that are being sold as an email, file, firewall, server in a box. When actually all it is, is a computer with locked down limited use. Why would I need to hook up another device that requires my PC to work to begin with?

    1. Re:Useful or useless by richieb · · Score: 2
      For one thing it can have a much better audio card than your PC and for the other it can be much quieter than a PC.

      Having said that, I have my laptop hooked up to my stereo and I grab MP3 files from my music server in the basement.

      --
      ...richie - It is a good day to code.
    2. Re:Useful or useless by dschuetz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why would I need to hook up another device that requires my PC to work to begin with?

      Because it takes up only like 8x10" of counter space in my kitchen, doesn't have a fan, and draws like 45mA when playing.

      Show me a good general purpose computer for $150 that'll do that and I'll drop the Rio in a heartbeat.

    3. Re:Useful or useless by cowboy+junkie · · Score: 3, Insightful
      In some cases, limited access *is* a feature as it keeps it simple and more dependable.
      Other pluses for the Rio:
      • Compact
      • Quiet
      • Low-power
      • Remote control
      • Output options - traditional stereo speakers, RCA jacks, headphones

      I used to use an old PC to serve the same purpose, but after I gave that away, I decided the Rio would be a simpler, cheap alternative.
    4. Re:Useful or useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >draws like 45mA when playing

      0.25 watts of sound per speaker doesn't sound like a stereo to me. It sounds like a walkman.

    5. Re:Useful or useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why those speakers of your have amps. Tho box itself is very low power.

  6. Digital Outputs by zalix · · Score: 1

    how about a nice digital output? since we are talking about a digital medium.

    1. Re:Digital Outputs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think digital output's going to make a difference when you're playing MP3s? Maybe for convenience's sake, but it's not like you'd improve the sound quality noticibly.

  7. Whoa... look at the box contents by theMAGE · · Score: 1

    On the site they list this as "Box Contents":
    # Windows 98, Windows 98SE, 2000, Millennium
    # Intel Pentium 200 MHz MMX or higher CPU
    # 32MB RAM
    # 16MB of available hard drive space
    # CD-ROM drive
    # PNA or Ethernet adapter for PC

    Wouldn't it be nice if they gave you a case to put all that stuff? And they give out a beefy harddrive if it has all those windows and 16 Megs to spare.

    1. Re:Whoa... look at the box contents by phyxeld · · Score: 1

      damn.
      you beat me by less than a minute,
      and only 3 units of slashdot CID!
      (whats that? a few seconds?)

      --
      __
      Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem. - Larry Wall
  8. Box Contents... by phyxeld · · Score: 1
    The official site has the following listed under Box Contents::
    • Windows 98, Windows 98SE, 2000, Millennium
    • Intel Pentium 200 MHz MMX or higher CPU
    • 32MB RAM
    • 16MB of available hard drive space
    • CD-ROM drive
    • PNA or Ethernet adapter for PC


    All that for $189? What a bargin!
    --
    __
    Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem. - Larry Wall
    1. Re:Box Contents... by Trisk · · Score: 1
      Values are in USD.
      • Intel Pentium MMX 200 MHz - $25
      • 32MB RAM (say, 100MHz SDRAM) - $15
      • 16MB hard drive -
      • CD-ROM drive (24x) - $15
      • Ethernet adapter (100TX) - $30
      • Windows 98, 98SE, ME, Windows 2000 - I can get better coasters for $2

      That adds up to about $92.
  9. linux server for rio receiver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. Re:linux server for rio receiver by Chase · · Score: 1
      Checkout Globecom Jukebox. I am currently converting the mock scripts to interface with a globecom jukebox instance.

      I also read (somewhere) that streaming audio was possible on a rio receiver. I think it was at the unofficial rio reciever bbs.

      --
      -==-
  10. Give us OGG support by Neil+Watson · · Score: 1

    Make me one that supports OGG files and I'll buy it.

    1. Re:Give us OGG support by duffbeer703 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Find someone who uses OGG and they'll make it.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    2. Re:Give us OGG support by dschuetz · · Score: 2

      Find someone who uses OGG and they'll make it.
      Actually, I believe there's a problem that OGG requires floating-point operations, and the system the receiver's built on only has integer stuff available.

      So, find someone who can write a fast FP OGG decoder and they'll make it might be more accurate.

      Plus, the jreceiver project's been experimenting with live streaming and transcoding, so you could maybe transcode an ogg file to very high bitrate mp3 at the server. Not for purists, I suppose, but would keep you from having to re-rip your library.

    3. Re:Give us OGG support by ajlitt · · Score: 1

      Write me a GPLed fixed-point OGG decoder optimized for ARM720T and I swear I'll give you, free of charge, an MP3 player that plays OGG.

    4. Re:Give us OGG support by duffbeer703 · · Score: 2

      Look man, OGG is a great, but it came 4-5 years too late.

      Beta was superior to VHS for videotaping. Guess what? Most people these days have never heard of Beta.

      MP3's have mindshare and name recognition. MP3=Pirated_Music to the general public. This will remain so, in spite of the existance of WMV and OGG.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    5. Re:Give us OGG support by Malc · · Score: 1

      Get a $35 FM transmitter and let the computer do the work. Listen to it on any standard radio.

    6. Re:Give us OGG support by morgue-ann · · Score: 1

      Find someone who uses OGG and they'll make it.

      I use ogg. When the only player I could find was Sonique and the only material was my dead friend's it seemed redundant.

      Now there's a plug-in for WinAmp and I have a CD-ROM drive that doesn't fuck up rips, so I'm building a library. Ogg Vorbis sounds better and it's openness is attractive for future-proofing and Hollings/Eisner/Valenti/Rosen-proofing my collection.

      I believe there's a problem that OGG requires floating-point operations

      The current implementation might require FP, but I haven't run across an audio processing algorithm that couldn't be done in fixed-point (and don't forget Turing after all). Sure it won't be easy, but with a reasonably fast processor and good fp emulation library, only a select few inner loops would have to be hand coded (to take the floating-point values, convert them to 32-bit fixed point values, do the processing using the uP's multiplier to best effect and putting the result back in floating point at the end).

    7. Re:Give us OGG support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Beta was superior to VHS for videotaping.

      Oh no, not this one again.

      Beta was arguably better if your show was no more than 1 hour long. Any longer and you would have to swap tapes. So therefore it is not better, except possibly for porn, but Sony made that illegal at first from what I've heard, thereby ruining the format for good.

      To get a VHS equivalent time on Beta the quality is less than 5% better (Beta II mode). Nothing to write home about.

      Sorry, but the Beta is better than VHS story is a myth possibly created by Sony. It might be (every so very slightly) better than VHS, but the recording length makes it an almost useless format (ever see a 3" CD? Not often? That's because the length is almost useless, just like Beta).

      Now, if you want to say Betacam, well, you're right. But that's a completely different beast...

    8. Re:Give us OGG support by mcspock · · Score: 1

      http://ivdev.sourceforge.net

      only plays up to b4 content, but hey, what do you expect for free.

      --
      -- Patience is a virtue, but impatience is an art.
    9. Re:Give us OGG support by codingOgre · · Score: 1

      That would be great if everyone's music was encoded at 80kbps!

      --
      Space may be the final frontier, but it's made in a Hollywood basement. --Red Hot Chili Peppers, Californication
    10. Re:Give us OGG support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless of what size beta tape you are using, it does not change the fact that OGG will be a distant, fading memory in the minds of about 6 people five years from now.

  11. Amazing! by KDENCE · · Score: 0

    I am amazed at the fact that Rio is finally making their awesome ideas affordable. This seems like something that I can get into, however it probably is a little to early in the game for me. This kinda technology and pricing should help Rio stay in the market or alive for a while.

  12. Not Very Helpful by UsonianAutomatic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This will be modded Offtopic/Flamebait/Troll, but I'm just irked enough to post it anyway.

    Reviews are most helpful when they draw some kind of consistent conclusion; One sentence says "The interface isn't bad" but is followed by a whole paragraph about what a pain the interface is to use. So, which is it?

    Most of the article is more critical than complimentary, and yet the conclusion is "All in all, this is a pretty neat device." Feh.

    I'm glad I'm not paying to read posts like this ad-free.

    1. Re:Not Very Helpful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So every review you read should say 'buy this' or 'don't buy this' instead of letting the READER draw a conclusion, based on the pros and cons presented in the review?

      Riiiiight.... Why don't you go buy a magazine, funded by advertisers money, that always give glowing reviews of the advertisers products? :P

    2. Re:Not Very Helpful by BigBir3d · · Score: 1

      i thought the parent post was an ad. it did not sound like they paid for it. and as you noted, it got the "pretty neat device" when the only real comments on usability (knob, windows only, requires pc) were somewhat negative.

      thanks OSDN.

  13. 802.11 Bridge by NetJunkie · · Score: 3, Informative

    D-Link now has an Ethernet to 802.11 bridge. I plan to get one and drop it behind my home theater to get Ethernet to my Xbox, TiVo, and some MP3 streaming hardware. I'd rather not run CAT5 there for just these low bandwidth devices.

    1. Re:802.11 Bridge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I checked their site but was unable to find the Ethernet to 802.11 bridge. That sounds like a great product.... probably get me to finally have mp3s playing in the living room. Do you have a link?

    2. Re:802.11 Bridge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks like he's referring to the DWL-900AP: http://www.dlink.com/products/wireless/dwl900ap/

      DLink's site said it was announced on the 27th of last month, so I'm not sure how easy it is to get one right now.

    3. Re:802.11 Bridge by NetJunkie · · Score: 1

      That's Linksys, not D-link. You can plug it in to a switch/hub for all your devices.

      Instant Wireless to Ethernet Adapter (WET11) - The Wireless to Ethernet Adapter enables any PC, printer, router, hard drive, or other Ethernet-equipped network hardware -- with wireless LAN connectivity. It acts as a wireless converter to bridge wireless and Ethernet. Use the Wireless to Ethernet Adapter interchangeably with your PCs and network hardware to extend and customize your wireless network to your needs.

  14. Rio Receiver with Linux Server by dschuetz · · Score: 5, Informative

    The SliMP3 is less polished, but is fed with a simple perl program that streams audio. The Audiotron is fed with any Samba compatible server. In other words, either device can work with a Linux box. The Rio currently can't

    Okay, this is probably the 10th time there's been a story about the Rio Receiver, and in each and every one someone like me stands up to shout:

    There are open-source Linux servers for the Rio Receiver!!!

    Check out a simple perl/apache one by Jeff Mock at www.mock.com/receiver,
    a more complex server that's built on java, jetty, struts, and the like at http://sourceforge.net/projects/jreceiver/. And be sure to check out the Rio discussion forum at http://rioreceiver.comms.net.

    Sonic Blue engineers frequent that message board, and there's lots of open-source hacking going on, including line-out kernel hacks, integrated web and vnc servers, and the like.

    1. Re:Rio Receiver with Linux Server by seanadams.com · · Score: 2

      The SliMP3 is less polished

      It's been quite a while since Taco wrote his review of our SliMP3 product. The unit he tested was a hand-made prototype that I built in my garage!

      Since then, the product is definitely more polished. We've sold a few hundred, we now have a proper case for it, and we have nearly a dozen software developers working on it.

      If you're in the market for a network MP3 player, please check out the SliMP3. It is the ONLY completely open-source player, and the ONLY one to use a high quality vacuum fluorescent display instead of a tiny backlit LCD.

      If you have any questions about the product, I will answer them under this thread. Sorry for plugging my product after some else's review, but I really think you'll find the SliMP3 more interesting. :)

    2. Re:Rio Receiver with Linux Server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See also http://das.sourceforge.net/ for perl scripts that serve up music to the Rio Receiver.

    3. Re:Rio Receiver with Linux Server by mcspock · · Score: 1

      I am intruiged by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      In all seriousness though, this looks like a pretty cool product, but i would have different needs for it. Specifically, you guys are using...cs8900a or something for ethernet? have you looked at putting a pcmcia slot on it and writing drivers for 802.11b cards? I dont have ethernet running through my house, but i would be willing to do wireless or HPNA to get something like this to work.

      By the way, on your web page, it says you use a cirrus 4334 dac; isn't that a 43l43? ;)

      --
      -- Patience is a virtue, but impatience is an art.
    4. Re:Rio Receiver with Linux Server by seanadams.com · · Score: 2

      I am intruiged by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      Please, don't believe me... watch this commerciaro.

      Specifically, you guys are using...cs8900a or something for ethernet?

      A little tricky due to the fact that I don't think any of the 802.11 cards will talk easily to an 8-bit system. In the mean time there are some cheap bridges. Our UDP streaming protocol works great with wireless - being tuned for low-latency LANs means we're more agressive about retransmitting lost packets.

      it says you use a cirrus 4334 dac; isn't that a 43l43

      It's a CS4334. There are a whole bunch of CD player DACs from Cirrus which are all basically the same, they just use different formats for the input stream.

    5. Re:Rio Receiver with Linux Server by mistered · · Score: 1
      It is the ONLY completely open-source player, and the ONLY one to use a high quality vacuum fluorescent display instead of a tiny backlit LCD.

      Have you seen the mp3elf? It's completely open source, including the hardware design. It uses the TINI from Dallas / Maxim to handle the ethernet / TCP/IP side of things. I've ordered a couple of TINIs since they seem really cool and cheap, too - as soon as mine comes in I'm going to put a mp3elf together.

      --
      Enjoy your job, make lots of money, work within the law. Choose any two.
    6. Re:Rio Receiver with Linux Server by seanadams.com · · Score: 2

      mp3elf looks pretty slick. I'm curious - how much does the TINI run?

    7. Re:Rio Receiver with Linux Server by mistered · · Score: 1
      $50.00 USD gets you 512KB of SRAM and 512KB of Flash; for an extra $17.00 you get 1MB of SRAM. I wanted to build my own ethernet+flash+sram+microcontroller board, but the TINI is so cheap it wasn't worth it to spend the time rolling my own. Unfortunately they're so popular they've got about a 2 month lead time.

      Here's a link to Dallas/Maxim's TINI info, and pricing info is available at their online store.

      --
      Enjoy your job, make lots of money, work within the law. Choose any two.
    8. Re:Rio Receiver with Linux Server by seanadams.com · · Score: 1

      Damn, that aint bad. We're doing the buffering in an SRAM, with a CPLD acting as kind of a DMA controller / fifo to pipe data into the decoder. It's about the same number of components and roughly the same cost probably.

      I'll take a closer look at the elf. It looks like you've solved similar problems using totally different technology - it looks pretty cost-effective.

    9. Re:Rio Receiver with Linux Server by mistered · · Score: 1
      That's exactly what I tought when I found the TINI. Just to avoid any confusion, I haven't had anything to do with the MP3elf other than being impressed with its design. One of the developers has already commented on this thread.

      Their ver. 1 design uses a FIFO and another 8051 uC acting as a serial to parallel converter. The ver. 2 design actually bit-bangs the serial interface to the MP3 decoder!

      That being said, I'm quite impressed with the SliMP3 as well, and it's quite a nice and attractive package. I'm more interested in the MP3elf though because I'd really like to do something myself. My player will have a TINI and the basics of the elf at its core; I'm not sure what else I'm going to add to it just yet. The cool thing is the TINI takes care of all of the input side, so I only have to worry about the MP3 decoder and DAC.

      --
      Enjoy your job, make lots of money, work within the law. Choose any two.
  15. The Competition by bookguy · · Score: 5, Informative

    What would be really great would be if someone actually tested all the various computer to stereo devices that are now hitting the market and made some sense of their differences, both in terms of features and in terms of quality.

    There's, by my count:

    Rio Central & Rio Receiver (www.sonicblue.com)
    Audiotron(http://www.turtlebe ach.com/site/products /audiotron/)
    Lansonic Digital Audio Server (www.lansonic.com)
    Request Audio Requester (www.request.com)
    SliMP3 (www.slimdevices.com)
    Stereo-Link (www.stereo-link.com)
    Yamaha CAVIT (http://www.yamaha.com/yec/cavit/)

    No one has mentioned Request, Lansonic or Yamaha products, to my knowledge. Nor has anyone compared the sound quality output to that of, say, the SoundBlaster Audigy.

    This is clearly a burgeoning category, but I for one could use some help separating the winners from the losers.

    1. Re:The Competition by dschuetz · · Score: 4, Informative

      What would be really great would be if someone actually tested all the various computer to stereo devices that are now hitting the market and made some sense of their differences, both in terms of features and in terms of quality.

      I'll bite. Send me hardware, I'll post the complete review within 30 days of receiving all the components. :)

      Rio Central & Rio Receiver
      Discussed here, with plenty of misunderstandings. From what I've seen, it's the best so far.

      Audiotron
      Cool formfactor (more component-like). But all the playlist / music management happens on the local unit, not on the server. So whenever you update stuff, it's gotta re-parse your folders, rather than simply saying "show me all the artists you have," which is what the Rio does. Plus, if you lose power (like if you unplug it to move it around), it's got to re-scan everything, too.

      Lansonic Digital Audio Server
      Interesting, looks much cooler, but damn is it expensive. $700 for the DISKLESS unit? (the closest competitor to the Rio). On the other hand, the server's a little cheaper. The 950-series looks like it's trying to be the front-end for an in-wall multi-zone system, which actually is something I need personally (and haven't yet figured out how I'll do it). Looks like a high-end audience, but I'm not convinced that it's any better in quality (their space usage estimates assume 128kbps compression rates).

      Request Audio Requester
      I think I've seen this page before. Like Lansonic, I think they're targeting the built-in systems, so they're competing with multi-kilobuck installations and are probably priced accordingly. Seems to include line-in inputs to "rip" LPs and tapes.

      SliMP3
      Ubercool device. About the size of a SIMM, does what the Rio Receiver does, mostly. Hardware decompression, if I recall, so no chance (as opposed to slim chance) of ogg or other codec support. No amplifier. Designed and built by geeks, for geeks. When they upgrade it to have an optional on-screen display, downloadable menus, and MPEG-2 video support, I'll buy four of 'em for an in-house a/v system.

      Stereo-Link
      Eh. Takes music played from a regular PC, only via USB, and, er, outputs line out audio. Not clear if the decompression is happening in the box or in the computer. This doesn't really belong in this discussion...

      Yamaha CAVIT
      Eh. Looks like the same sort of thing as Stereo-Link, but maybe with an integrated amp? Again, not even the same category of product as the first five.

      So, to sum up, we've got Rio (server and client, proprietary but semi-opened protocols), Audiotron (client only, uses SMB), Lansonic and Request (high-end, expensive, very different target audience, probably closed protocols), and SliMP3 (receiver only, linux server, open everything).

      Recommendations:

      If you want something that looks at home in your stereo rack, and don't mind putting everything on a windows share (even on a linux box), use Audiotron.

      If you've got a linux server and want a really cool, geeky, high-tech sort of thing with a display you can read from Mars, get the SliMP3.

      If you want a more capable receiver, windows and linux server support, and an optional stereo-component-looking server, choose Rio, especially if you can find more of the $100 units (TigerDirect is apparently sold out now).

      ps -- I've got three Rios. Love 'em.

    2. Re:The Competition by twenex · · Score: 1

      One thing you missed about the Audiotron is that it has web control, either through standard web pages, a skinny version for small devices, or through an API. There are quite a few people developing API clients, including one for a Palm!!

    3. Re:The Competition by wilko11 · · Score: 1

      Also have a look at the MP3elf
      This is an open source hardware and software project that I am involved with.
      We have just released our second revision board.
      The system consists of an embedded java computer in the mp3elf device itself and server side software, also written in java.
      The server can work with the JReceiver software that has been mentioned elsewhere. This gives it the ability to play back Ogg via JReceiver's transcoding support

    4. Re:The Competition by seanadams.com · · Score: 3, Informative

      SliMP3
      Ubercool device. About the size of a SIMM,


      It's 8.5" wide, 2.5" tall, and 2" deep. Dunno what kind of SIMMs you're using. :)

      does what the Rio Receiver does, mostly

      Actually does a lot more:
      - clock display
      - groovy menu scrolling
      - search capability
      - way faster UI
      - easier setup
      - hackable
      - proxies to shoutcast, icecast, http, and live365 sources

      Hardware decompression, if I recall, so no chance (as opposed to slim chance) of ogg or other codec support.

      True, but we can transcode ogg to high bit rate MPEG. Yes, I know it's a hack, but it sounds just as good as the original ogg with HQ VBR.

      No amplifier.

      That's a feature! What use is a built-in 10W/channel amp, honestly?

      Designed and built by geeks, for geeks.

      Indeed. Also designed by Slashdot readers, for Slashdot readers. :)

      When they upgrade it to have an optional on-screen display, downloadable menus, and MPEG-2 video support, I'll buy four of 'em for an in-house a/v system.

      Video is a different story altogether. *way* more bandwidth, needs a powerful PVR-like head-end to serve the thin clients - very exepensive / limited market. We might do a video product in the not-too-distant future, but it won't look much like the SliMP3.

    5. Re:The Competition by bookguy · · Score: 1
      See, the thing is, I'm not sure that the items you dismiss (stereo-link, Yamaha) should be dismissed. Stereo-Link, which I've decided to try myself since it's way cheap, is really just a DAC converter using the USB port for output. But if you look at their website, it looks like the sound quality is very, very high -- far better than the MP3-based units, because their digital-analog compression is obviously excellent and all the "stuff" is happening on the computer -- whether it be MP3 decompression or WAV playing. It allows you to treat your computer as a jukebox using your stereo, with the limitation being the physical connection to the computer, easily ameliorated by connecting the stereo-link to a cheap, fanless box (g3 iMac, anyone?) connected to an ethernet network.

      My point is, no one has really dug in and looked at the combination of features and audio quality in terms of evaluating which of these units will serve one's needs most successfully. I'm willing to give up a lot of the cool geek gizmos in favor of better sound (I rip and archive mostly in lossless compression formats -- let's not even get the conversation about which one of those to use started!).

    6. Re:The Competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Audiotron
      Cool formfactor (more component-like). But all the playlist / music management happens on the local unit, not on the server. So whenever you update stuff, it's gotta re-parse your folders, rather than simply saying "show me all the artists you have," which is what the Rio does. Plus, if you lose power (like if you unplug it to move it around), it's got to re-scan everything, too.

      Voyetra/Turtle Beach is actually in the process of changing a lot of this. In their newest beta version of the OS, they have both a programming API (to allow complete control of the unit from software running somewhere else), and also a 'table of contents file' feature that (basically) sllows you to pre-generate a TOC that the unit can load, rather than it having to re-scan every file. On my 4200-song collection, it takes about 1 minute to load my TOC file, which is certainly within my limits for 'tolerable'. ... And the interface sure as heck beats just browing directories looking for filenames and the like. And with the TOC feature I can even reclassify things on the fly if I want (rather than changing the tags, which may not always be desirable). The Audiotron also has a digital output, which is really nice. Its analaog output isn't all that hot though, unfortunately.

  16. How about a processor less player? by EnVisiCrypt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It seems to me the the major price addition on these receivers is the processor. Why not do something like Sony's PCLink for their MD's (except this would use something with longer distance than USB) and feed audio, rather than MP3 data straight from the computer? That way, there is no interference with normal audio on the PC, yet the stream is processed to audio by your already purchased general purpose PC processor. It also allows for a bit more flexibility in file format support. I can't imagine these limited use processors/memory units have a lot of room for additional codec code.

    I imagine some sort of cheap PCI card broadcasting wirelessly to the "receiver". Plus, it would look better than stringing CAT-5 all over the house, since a lot of PC's are no where near the nice stereo equipment.

    --


    *everything* is Orwellian to cats.
    1. Re:How about a processor less player? by EnVisiCrypt · · Score: 1

      I should have been more specific. I'm looking at something slightly more wideband than FM. Think about it: You have to transmit display data and remote control information.

      That's a little more than FM can handle. Plus, FM is susceptible to signal drift and interference from neighbouring frequency, which makes it a no go in a radio rich area (like a big city).

      --


      *everything* is Orwellian to cats.
    2. Re:How about a processor less player? by diablochicken · · Score: 1

      I've had a Rio Receiver for the past 6 months or so, and I can tell you that the number one benefit is that it _doesn't_ use your PC's processor. I can crunch graphics and play games while listening to my entire music collection and not worrying about the music or the apps getting bogged down.

  17. Blah blah blah by NiftyNews · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Translation: "Hey, I'm in the market for a free MP3 unit. Which one of you manufacturors will be the first one to shut me up by mailing me a free one? I promise to post all of your specs in the article for site's my massive audience!

  18. In related news by rbgaynor · · Score: 5, Funny

    Disney CEO Michael Eisner will appear before congress to argue that hpna/ethernet technology is only used for the illegal copy and distribution of copyrighted material and that the use of hpna/ethernet should be banned or heavily regulated. Eisner is also reportedly not happy with people humming the theme songs from Disney movies in public, but is not expected to propose any limitations on vocal cords at his appearance before congress.

    --
    "Good things don't end with eum, they end with mania or teria." - H. Simpson
    1. Re:In related news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As they say..

      When hpna/ethernet technology are outlawed, then only outlaws will have hpna/ethernet technology.

    2. Re:In related news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eisner is also reportedly not happy with people humming the theme songs from Disney movies in public, but is not expected to propose any limitations on vocal cords at his appearance before congress.

      You think this is a joke but it isn't. They've come down hard on little kids for singing Disney songs at elementary school shows. I expect to see an SSSCA for biological copyright infringement devices as soon as genetic engineering really hits its stride.

  19. A few glitches by cowboy+junkie · · Score: 2

    I've been happy with my Rio Receiver for the most part, but the screen problem is a real drag, as it renders advanced remote functions practically useless at a distance. Also, on Win2K, trying to import large playlists has a tendency to crash the Rio application.

    But it's an easier sale now that the price point has started to drop a bit. When it was up near $300 it was harder to swallow.

  20. Hack The RR! by EricKrout.com · · Score: 0, Redundant

    - Hacking The Rio Receiver
    - Setting up a Linux machine as a server for the RR
    - Code for the Rio Receiver to exercise LCD, IR remote, audio, and a GPL MP3 player
    - There are a few other sections on the above website as well; anyone with a RR or considering purchasing one should check it out.

    MONOLINUX :: Join Today To Get A UID < 100!

  21. Rio Receiver - what about CAT5 by fruey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You can run reasonable quality audio over about 30-50m of CAT5 and then solder phone jacks on the end and plug it into your stereo, or buy a cheap amplifier and be done with it.

    So what is the advantage of this box? Doesn't appear to have Remote control, and anyway, you could use remote control for your PC as it is.

    Great if you have the money, but my PC with DVD sends audio and video over about 20m of CAT5 and the Audio and Video quality are just fine thank you very much (using Composite signal from TV out card).

    --
    Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    1. Re:Rio Receiver - what about CAT5 by Dr.+Ion · · Score: 1

      This is one of those things that just can't be explained to people who don't see the value in it. If you don't need a remote MP3 player, then you just don't need one and you can run long wires or FM transmitters, or whatever gives you "reasonable quality".

      But for me, the advantage to a real MP3 player is huge. The PC doesn't play the audio! It could be playing something completely different, or playing a game, while the audio plays elsewhere (in the livingroom). Or I could have different audio in each room with a Rio and no extra wire pairs.

      How far do you think you can run that unshielded wire before it picks up hum from nearby AC lines?

      In a pinch, I've run video over twisted pair too, but that doesn't mean I liked it. :)

    2. Re:Rio Receiver - what about CAT5 by zerofoo · · Score: 2

      Just run the audio over RG6 coax cable; it's slightly ghetto, but RG6 does provide a nice shield against RF-EM noise.

      -ted

    3. Re:Rio Receiver - what about CAT5 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >How far do you think you can run that unshielded wire before it picks up hum from nearby AC lines?

      If its balanced (which, if its coming from a PC, it sadly isn't) as far as you like, until the resistance from the copper becomes a factor.

  22. Technology destroying sound quality ? by swordgeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've noticed that as we get cooler and more portable technology, sound quality seems to be on the decline.

    MP3 sucks. Well maybe it doesn't suck, but it's a damned sight worse than CD audio, and let's not forget that CDs just barely encompass the resolution and frequency response that we can discern. There's bloody little headroom to muck about with on a CD without affecting the sound. Lossy compression (i.e. MP3 format) definitely qualifies, and definitely affects the sound.

    This is fine for portable systems, computer speakers, and so forth; However, I'm getting worried that MP3 and other similar formats will become dominant in the marketplace. We may see before long a world where it's pointless to get really excellent audio equipment, because the playback quality is severely limited by the format.

    --

    "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    1. Re:Technology destroying sound quality ? by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 2

      You're exactly right, and it's for that reason I don't think in the long run record companies really have to worry about mp3s.

      I have a good bit of money invested in my home and car stereo. The first time I tried playing a burned CD made from mp3s, I was deeply, deeply disapointed.

      The only real application I could see from something like this is to stream Internet radio. The quality is'nt that great, but a good stream is still on par with broadcast. Unfortunatly, I don't see any standard for choosing and selecting online stations.

      In the meantime, if I really want to listen to audio from my computer on my home stereo, 50 feet of moderate quality RCA style cable running out from my sound card is a lot cheaper.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    2. Re:Technology destroying sound quality ? by blacksun19 · · Score: 1

      i'm all for sound quality, but i think you're remiss in saying that you're worried about mp3 becoming dominant...don't you think it already has?

      unless, of course, you meant dominant in the 'excellent audio equipment' marketplace...which i don't think it has a chance of, as you stated.

    3. Re:Technology destroying sound quality ? by tbmaddux · · Score: 1
      We may see before long a world where it's pointless to get really excellent audio equipment...

      While I can't hear a difference between MP3 and CD on my system, and I am dubious about quality problems (at least for pure playback) with CDs, I do see your point. Perhaps DVD-audio will be the salvation you seek? 24-bit 96kHz should leave enough headroom to resample or mix audio without audible artifacts. Plus you get the added benefit of a 5.1 surround soundstage for your music.

      On the subject of the Rio Central, I think more MP3 options are great. Right now I am ripping my CDs to my beige G3 Mac and then burning mixes on CD-R for my DVD player to output to the stereo. The DVD player can decode the MP3s and output stereo digital PCM audio to my receiver. It'd be nice if the Rio Central would do that as well.

      --
      Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
    4. Re:Technology destroying sound quality ? by swordgeek · · Score: 2

      I mean dominant as in the commercially embraced format. Right now the industry is struggling with MP3, and >90% of music is still being purchased on CD, despite what the RIAA would have us believe. MP3 is not yet a commercial format. It's barely even a commercially supported format, and the only reason it's got that far is that "support" means coding a player, not building hardware.

      Sure, you've got half a terabyte of MP3s sitting in your basement. That doesn't make it a commercially dominant format. However, it's clear that something like MP3 is going to take over that role, and once it does we'll have a harder time buying CDs than we do records right now.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    5. Re:Technology destroying sound quality ? by guttentag · · Score: 4, Funny
      let's not forget that CDs just barely encompass the resolution and frequency response that we can discern
      Barely \Bare"ly\, adv.
      1. Merely; only.
      2. he barely escaped.


      Let me get this straight: CDs encompass the resolution and frequency response that we can discern, but that's not enough for you? Why do you want CDs that can play music you can't hear?

      Perhaps I'm missing something here, but the only reasons that come to mind are:

      • You've been smoking an RIAA-certified dog-whistle crack pipe for too long
      • You are trying to turn your Discman into a sound-wave-based weapon
      • It would make a great companion for your infra red television
      I agree with you about the quality of MP3s, though, but toys like the Rio Receiver are hardly mainstream. I wouldn't worry too much about MP3s replacing CDs.
    6. Re:Technology destroying sound quality ? by Mistah+Blue · · Score: 1

      MP3's do not suck in general. It depends on the quality of the rip and the encode. If you use a quality ripper like paranoia (Linux) or EAC (Windows) coupled with LAME, most audiophile ears can't tell the difference. CBR 256Kbps is CD quality. LAME VBR gives you the advantage of compression with high audio quality (essentially CD quality -- my ears can't tell the difference).

    7. Re:Technology destroying sound quality ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +3 insightful?? wow moderators distracted by shiny objects.

      Let's tear you to pieces shall we?

      Mp3 sucks... Wrong... with a proper encoder and proper equipment behind it I can make 160Kbps mp3's that you CANNOT tell the difference between the actual CD and the mp3.... this is on $20,000 speakers and a cheapo $100,000 audio system.

      CD's suck and are limited.. Wrong/Right. CD's that you can buy do suck, not because of the CD, but because the audio technicians that mastered them are idiots,morons,or forced to make them crappy. I was in highschool when CD's hit the market, I paid $100.00 for an import refrence CD that still is so good sounding compared to everything else available in the USA that it still blows everything out there away. Pressings of the CD's are done insanely fast and quality is lacking... but who cares? noone will notice withthe crappy mastering and recording going on.

      Lossy compression affects the sound... True-kinda....

      Yes it CAN effect the sound if done improperly and with crap equipment... (you have less than $5000.00 in you mixer? you have CRAP!) what about your audio processing? limiters? you're using balanced audio all the way through to the digital side? There are 3 Mp3 encoders that are worth a damn.. The Senheuizer encoder (hardware only, $36,000) the ScanSpeak encoder (hardware/software hybrid) and finally... Lame. Yup that freeware hippy-lovin linux program called lame.

      anything else is crap and a waset of time.

    8. Re:Technology destroying sound quality ? by mblase · · Score: 2

      MP3 sucks. Well maybe it doesn't suck, but it's a damned sight worse than CD audio, and let's not forget that CDs just barely encompass the resolution and frequency response that we can discern.

      Good; I agree. Keep telling this to the RIAA until they get the message that MP3 file sharing is not, in fact, a total threat to their business.

      However, for most folks, MP3 is Good Enough. It doesn't contain all the sound, no, but it makes up for it by giving you the power to store all your favorite songs on a single hard drive instead of needing to spring for a 300-CD jukebox for your stereo. Plus it's easier to navigate and program playlists on MP3 jukebox software, using your keyboard and mouse.

      If you really think that sound quality is the only thing consumers are interested, you haven't been paying attention. If you can increase convenience by a factor of ten, while decreasing quality by a mere 10%, most people would consider that a spectacular trade-off.

    9. Re:Technology destroying sound quality ? by swordgeek · · Score: 3, Informative

      I said barely, and I meant it. I think you misunderstood my motives for the CD comment.

      CDs cover a frequency range of DC (theoretically) to 22.05kHz. Humans on average can hear 20Hz-20kHz when they're young, and the high frequencies drop off as we age. Notice that that's an average. Some people can hear 22kHz frequencies, which strains CD quality to the breaking point. Then there's resolution--16 bits is again right on the border.

      The point of these numbers though, is this: Any lossy compression on a CD-quality file will result in audible losses. If you had a 40-bit 100kHz frequency response on CDs, then you could grind them down into (large!) MP3s without worrying about losing detectible information. As it is, we're chopping away at a format (CD audio) that can't afford any chopping away, and in a few years when CDs go the way of the dinosaur, is their replacement going to be worse? It sure looks like it from my end.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    10. Re:Technology destroying sound quality ? by Cryptnotic · · Score: 4, Informative

      So use FLAC.

      http://flac.sourceforge.net/

      Porting the flac player to the Rio Receiver should be fairly straightforward, since there is a linux player and the Rio Receiver runs Linux. I'd be suprised if someone hasn't done it already.

      --
      My other first post is car post.
    11. Re:Technology destroying sound quality ? by jeverist · · Score: 1
      Wrong. Your ears may not be able to tell the difference, but I can, blindfolded, and with a set of $50 powered speakers. Every single time. With MP3s encoded at 320Kbps, at that.


      Its hard to describe, but MP3's sound like they have the "breath" knocked out of them.


      This is a result of having a trained ear, being a musician, and spending many hours in a recording studio. So my ears or trained. But again, the blindfold test. I can beat it every single time, without exeption. So the difference between CD's and MP3's is there, its just that you can't tell the difference because your ears aren't trained to notice.

    12. Re:Technology destroying sound quality ? by wbattestilli · · Score: 1

      If you mean the 128k bps MP3s that were ripped by a Xing encoder, I agree. Poorly encoded, low bitrate anything will be worse than the original.

      There will be a lot of arguments in this thread about what people can and can't hear. I won't contribute to that. I'll just say this.

      I listen to only MP3's. They were all ripped from CD's (that I bought) using the latest version of LAME with the --r3mix option. The option makes a variable bitrate MP3 that averages about 200k bps.

      I think that I have exceptional hearing and I did a test listening to a CD track vs the same thing run through LAME. I couldn't tell the difference.

      Bottom line: You can't notice everything in a CD quality audio stream. If you want smaller files, I'm sure that you can find a method of MP3 encoding that sounds good to you. That is really all that matters anyway.

    13. Re:Technology destroying sound quality ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok in regaurds to the "barely emcompassing the frequency response that we can discern" stuff...

      A CD player plays sound that has been sampled at 44khz. 44khz is way out of the range that we can hear. so on the surface this looks to be way more than enough resolution. BUT because of something called "anti-aliasing" the highest frequancy sound that you can get out of any digitally sampled audio is HALF of the sample rate. This makes sense when you take into account that in order to make one wave leingh you need to have at the very least 2 samples.

      OK so a 44khz sampled sound file can only reproduce a 22khz sound wave. That is just barely above what you can hear. Now, when the wave is "shaped" by the DAC it doesn't know what that 22khz wave looked like... so what it does is makes a guess at what the wave looked like. This really degrades the higher frequancy sound.

      That's why things like ProTools will sample at a seemingly outrageously high sample rate of 96khz.

      If you need a clearer picture of what's really going on, try feeding a sine wave into a digital scope and increase the frequancy of the signal until it gets to be half of the sampled rate of the scope. The shape of the wave will start to look like a triangle wave.

      Now, for compression, basically they do a Fourier Transfor on the wave and get rid of anything that's over 16khz(i think), along with some other stuff. Which, of course, reduces the quality even more.

      and now i'll shut up, and listen to my crappy quality music on my mp3 player.

    14. Re:Technology destroying sound quality ? by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      THANKS!!!

      This is exactly what I've been looking for, and I didn't know that such a thing existed. I'm a happy camper today.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    15. Re:Technology destroying sound quality ? by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      Unless I'm misreading what you're saying here, you've got it backwards.

      A pure tone is a sine wave of a single frequency. That frequency is all there is. A fourier transform of a sine wave will give a single line.

      A triangular wave is mathematically a combination of pure tones based on the fundamental frequency. In other words, it's a sine wave at the base frequency, and sine waves of different amplitudes at different harmonics of that frequency. This, in fact, holds true for any non-sine waveform.

      So if you have a triangular wave at, say, 50kHz and you feed it into a scope that tops out at 80kHz, all you'll see is the 50kHz sine wave, and all of the contributing harmonics will be chopped out. In other words, if you feed a square wave (easier to type than triangular :-) into a scope and start to crank up the frequency, it will approach a sine wave. Not the other way round.

      As an aside, if you accept that a human's hearing drops off to ~none by 22kHz, then a 15kHz signal will sound the same to a person regardless of whether it's a square wave, sine wave, or anything else based on the first harmonic being at least an octave above the fundamental.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    16. Re:Technology destroying sound quality ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you have no idea what you're talking about do you? You're probably some dumbass, wannabe sound engineer that works in a cheap Movie theater and hooked his over priced iPod up to the sound system and played some stolen music.

      Take some calculus/engineering classes, come back and read your post. Then you'll realize how far your head is stuck up your ass!

    17. Re:Technology destroying sound quality ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry let me clear that up... when i was talking about a FT, i ment on the music. Sorry about that. I was jumping around.

      Also on the Scope i was using was set to just connect the dots and not to do any kind of shaping of the wave. Maybe my scope is just a POS. :)

      In regaurds to the aside about human hearing, you're right in that if a sound wave is at 15khz i hear it the same way you do. but if the original sound wave was 22khz it would be totally dropped by the compression and neither of us would hear it. in other words it would be totally axed out of the MP3. I haven't tried this but i've heard this is true.

    18. Re:Technology destroying sound quality ? by JPriest · · Score: 2
      Unfortunatly, I don't see any standard for choosing and selecting online stations.

      They have satellite radio subscription services. You can pick up satellite antennas/receivers for your car and some high end CD players/head units come satellite capable. Good for people who live in the sticks and don't like country music.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    19. Re:Technology destroying sound quality ? by Drizzten · · Score: 1

      The first time I tried playing a burned CD made from mp3s, I was deeply, deeply disapointed.

      In my 2002 Golf, I have a JVC KD-SH99 MP3 CD reciever that plays disks burned using the VBR LAME help offered here. I run no other aftermarket stereo parts in the car and have marginally minimal problems with the sound quality.

      Of course, what constitutes "excellent" sound is subjective. I will say that after hauling my friends around, they never complain, they always compliment, and the few times where I was reminded I was listening to MP3 were when the source material overwhelmed my stock car speakers - four tweeters and four woofers on factory crossovers. I'm certainly no textbook audiophile, but when I'm listening to music, I am anal about it being clear and clean. And it is, 99.95% of the time. That JVC deck was the best $400 I've gotten my dad to spend on me for Christmas. =)

      --

      "All mankind is at the mercy of a handful of neurotics". - Norman Douglas
    20. Re:Technology destroying sound quality ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also ont the point of CD/MP3 quality, most MP3 encoders use a high-pass filter to further reduce audio quality (smaller MP3 size).

      Most filter out 20Khz+, some 18Khz+ (gasp!).

      Bring back DAT, I say.

    21. Re:Technology destroying sound quality ? by Drizzten · · Score: 1

      ...in a few years when CDs go the way of the dinosaur, is their replacement going to be worse? It sure looks like it from my end.

      This is assuming that MP3 replaces the CD. DVD-Audio and Super Audio CDs are more likely to replace our standard CDs than anything else.

      --

      "All mankind is at the mercy of a handful of neurotics". - Norman Douglas
    22. Re:Technology destroying sound quality ? by uebernewby · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't worry too much if I were you. Not much will be lost, really. 90 percent of what constitutes music these days is a hack job done on antiquated ADAT or harddisk recorders by engineers who've pretty much forgotten the fine old art of miking things. Then it gets slammed through some extremely damaging compressor presets to 'make it as loud as possible' repeatedly.

      MP3-ing this kind of music doesn't make it sound any worse than it already does.

      Old music, you say? Well, maybe 'tube (pre)amps have warmth' and 'tape saturation makes instruments sink into the mix in a pleasant fashion', but analog technology also has the drawback of introducing a lot of signal distortion and noise 'true audiophiles' probably aren't interested in. I'll grant you, however, that MP3 encoding isn't terribly nice to such material.

      On a positive note, the techniques (or factory presets) sound engineers use are geared towards optimizing the output for whatever the material is most likely to be played on. So if MP3s become the norm, expect music to be produced specifically for this format. You're right: this does make 'really excellent audio equipment pointless', but no more pointless than it is now, with music being produced in such a way that it sounds good on tv or FM radio.

      --

      News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
  23. Use wireless! by BetaRelease · · Score: 1

    If you've got a laptop running Windows or Linux, get a wireless card and a wireless router/Access Point, set up your desktop as a samba server and you've achieved the same thing. Additional benefit is you can use the laptop to ssh or check e-mail. :)

  24. WMA problems by sulli · · Score: 5, Informative
    Did you see this? from the faq?

    (24311)Selected WMA tracks aren't being added to the Receiver.
    WMA files can have built in file protection. This allows distributors to add features such as expiration dates to the downloaded files. If one or more WMA tracks are not added correctly when you Import Music, this is most likely caused by a limitation of the file. Try playing the files in question on the server, with any normal WMA music player. If the track will not play on the server computer. Contact the distributor for more information on playing these files. If you have playback permissions or are using an unprotected WMA file, you should not experience this issue.

    Interesting that they have to explain this to their users. Here DRM acting "normally" is perceived as a problem by users and techsupport. After users experience this once, will they switch from MP3 to WMA? I don't think so.

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
  25. Broadcast on FM instead by ChicoLance · · Score: 5, Informative

    Another alternative for MP3's that I don't see mentioned often:

    Ramsey Electronics has an FM transmitter which plugs in nicely to your computer. Then, any radio around the house can pick up your MP3s, including the main radio, and the headphone radio you have when you mow the lawn.

    The only catch is that this transmitter is sold as a kit of parts, and you must solder the thing together. This makes it a "homebrew" radio which is legal to transmit onto the FM band. It works great around the house.

    1. Re:Broadcast on FM instead by Dr.+Ion · · Score: 1

      I suppose that's fine if you like the quality and dynamic range of FM Radio. Blech! It's bad enough going from true CD Quality to MP3, but to snuff it further to FM bandwidth, that's sacrilege.

      Besides, if you buy any of the lower-end FM transmitter kits, they use lousy tuning circuits that need to be constantly adjusted to stay on frequency. And they're woefully underpowered. Just walking around the room will detune them or cut your signal. Give me real copper wire anyway.

    2. Re:Broadcast on FM instead by Cloud+9 · · Score: 1
      This makes it a "homebrew" radio which is legal to transmit onto the FM band. It works great around the house.

      There are plenty of pre-made FM transceivers on the market, even Radio Shack sells one. They are also often used in car stereos not equipped with RCA outputs, for the use of hooking up CD changers and the like. Broadcasting on any band is legal, so long as it doesn't go beyond a certain range (I've never seen one do more than 20 or 30 feet).

      --
      Karma: Dyn-o-mite!(mostly affected by Jimmy Walker reading your comments)
    3. Re:Broadcast on FM instead by ChicoLance · · Score: 1

      You're underestimating this transmitter. I've got the $30 model that doesn't have PLL tuning, and I've never had it drift significantly in frequency on me. It will also transmit about 1/4 mile away, and the signal is bright and strong, and doesn't get "blocked" by simply walking in front of it. The higher one with PLL turning is "locked" and will not drift.

      I've got several friends who have this also, and it really is the only way to go.

    4. Re:Broadcast on FM instead by Evro · · Score: 1

      Can you point me to the exact page that has this thing? Or tell me the model number? And how hard is it to build? I haven't touched a soldering iron in like 8 years or so.

      --
      rooooar
    5. Re:Broadcast on FM instead by Malc · · Score: 1

      I got something similar pre-assembled from CanaKit: http://www.canakit.com/Default.asp?Contents=/Inclu de/Template/MenuCat.asp&Main=/Contents/Items/UK333 .asp

      Now, if I can just fix interference that I get when plugged into my PC soundcard, I'd be happy.

    6. Re:Broadcast on FM instead by ChicoLance · · Score: 1

      This is the link to the one I have (the FM10A):

      http://www.ramseyelectronics.com/cgi-bin/commerc e. exe?preadd=action&key=FM10a

      The kit comes with parts, a circuit board, and nicely written instructions. If you've soldered anything before, it's really easy to build. This kit is about $35 now, which doesn't include the case (unlike some of the other more expensive kits on the same page). You'll probably want the case for the extra $15 and it includes the whip antenna.

      They have others transmitters that use a phase-locked loop (PLL) to prevent frequency drift, instead of a tuned coil like the FM10A, but I haven't had any problems with drift.

      Oh, and to answer other questions, broadcasting at this power (enough to go down the road a bit for this little kit) onto the commericial FM band is not normally legal, except for the case of homebrew, as I understand it. That's why it's in parts. It's a well made kit.

  26. Why don't manufacturers document the protocol? by markj02 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't get it. Why don't people who manufacture these devices document the protocol and put it up on the web? They'd have Linux and MacOS support within days.

    1. Re:Why don't manufacturers document the protocol? by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 2

      Because then the bad people from Audiotron and Yamaha would certainly steal it, and replace their systems with this one which is undoubtedly infinitely superior. Guess you'll just have to install Windows to use it.

      --
      "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
    2. Re:Why don't manufacturers document the protocol? by markj02 · · Score: 2
      That would be silly. The "bad people from Audiotron and Yamaha" could just use an open protocol if they didn't want to spend the couple of hours to cook up their own.

      Guess you'll just have to install Windows to use it.

      I think I'll just take my dollars to a more clueful vendor. Even if I were to use this on Windows, why would I want a device that's tied to software that's likely to be obsolete with the next Windows release? Thanks, but no more expensive doorstops for me.

    3. Re:Why don't manufacturers document the protocol? by sheldon · · Score: 2

      This device is already virtually obsolete. Rio hasn't updated the software in quite some time, and it doesn't work very well as it is.

      You are right, of course, they should just document the protocol. Or in this case use a protocol that isn't so tied to Linux.

    4. Re:Why don't manufacturers document the protocol? by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 2

      Sorry, I forgot a closing tag.
      </sarcasm>
      There. All better. It should render properly now.

      --
      "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
    5. Re:Why don't manufacturers document the protocol? by seanadams.com · · Score: 2

      Why don't people who manufacture these devices document the protocol and put it up on the web?

      Uh... here you go:

      The Slim UDP Protocol

    6. Re:Why don't manufacturers document the protocol? by pdh11 · · Score: 1
      Why don't people who manufacture these devices document the protocol and put it up on the web? They'd have Linux and MacOS support within days.

      Because we needn't have bothered. There was Linux and MacOS support pretty quickly anyway, just from people reverse-engineering the protocol.

      Peter

  27. Why Not Wireless? by redvision4 · · Score: 1

    You can find 802.11 desktop wireless cards on pricewatch for less than $40 now. It seems that they could have put this feature in at a small cost to them. And streaming mp3s at 2.5Mb/s is more than enough bandwidth. If i'm going to use these for multizone audio as the article suggests, I sure as heck don't want to wire them all with CAT5 around my house.

    1. Re:Why Not Wireless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. It'd be nice to at least have the option of being able to add an 802.11b PCMCIA card to it, even if they only support a single vendor or model. The only thing stopping me from getting an Audiotron is that I don't feel like cutting holes in my wall to run a cable to my servers in the basement. My stereo rack is directly above my 802.11b access point and I'd easily be able to get 11Mbps throughput and a nice clean signal. Oh well. I guess my two options are to either build a wireless bridge system (in which case I might as well stick a sound card in it and play the mp3's through that, or drill holes in my wall. *sigh*. When are manufacturers going to realize running cables is so outdated!

    2. Re:Why Not Wireless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. My stereo is right below my WAP. I'm also thinking about building a car-sterio, with something like a 40GB drive, and an PCMCIA 802.11 card for streaming media to and from it when I am parked... Although.... my wap also has 4 ports on it, I could easily poke something through the wall, without being obtrusive (built-in cable, speaker wiring is all in the same spot, what's another jack?), and still add this to my stereo....

      hmmm...

    3. Re:Why Not Wireless? by schnuf · · Score: 1

      That's fine, but the Rio Receiver hardware was designed at least two years ago, at which point wireless functionality would have cost a greate deal more to add than $40.

      If they were redesigning the hardware again now (which they no doubt are) then I'm sure they would add wireless.

  28. Re:Why is this device not Open Source? by DaveWork · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It runs Linux, and the source code to the modified kernel comes on the CD in the box.

  29. Very useful! by dimer0 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have one of these mounted on the wall in my garage, with ethernet run out there and in-wall speakers. I'd definitely not want a computer and monitor out in my garage. This is perfect. The inboard amplifier is great, too!

    Definitely doesn't belong in a stero rack, though.. That's where the Audiotron is. Looks like a stereo component, and has optical audio out.

    And, the comment about how it requires a computer? Oh, I'm venturin' to guess that everyone on this site has a computer laying around. Comon.

  30. Rio Receiver works GREAT from Linux! by Dr.+Ion · · Score: 5, Informative

    My Rio Receiver works great, and I've never run the Windows software. The Rio Receiver is one of the best values around for remote networked MP3 players. At its core, the Rio Receiver (aka Sonic Blue) is an ARM7 processor running Linux.

    With a little work, you can get it to boot from a Linux server and mount its filesystem over NFS. (This is what the Windows software does, more or less.) The entire filesystem is in the "receiver.arf" tar file that comes with the software.

    The most well-known Rio server hack for Linux was put together by Jeff Mock and available from his webpage. If you're reasonably familiar with setting up remote-booting machines, the Rio should not be much of a challenge. Jeff wrote a small perl daemon to handle the unique boot sequence for the Rio, and a larger set of scripts to serve up the MP3 files.

    After using Jeff's fine server for a while, I found I wanted something with better MP3 management and playlist support. That's when I found the JReceiver Project. This software rocks! It's a royal PITA to set up if you're not a Java programmer, but it does quite a bit. It's a full SQL front-end for your MP3 content, so playlists can be dynamic from SQL expressions ("I want all new ROCK songs added in the last 14 DAYS that are not by CREED"). And of course, it serves the Rio directly. It will also handle the booting if you want to boot Rio from the same Linux machine that runs JReceiver.

    Last, Frank van Gestel put together a terrific modification to the Rio Receiver filesystem that adds a local http server to the receiver box itself. This serves up the exact front-panel display to a web browser, and you can operate all the controls remotely over the network. Now you can get a clear view of the Receiver screen without being right in front of it. Further, it will let you control the line-level volume output as well as the speaker output (a shortcoming of the original kernel). You can get the patch files in this thread

    Lots of intelligent discussion on the Rio boxes at rioreceiver.comms.net

    All in all, this is the best networked MP3 player going for under $100. Audiotron is nice, but this is cheaper and far more hackable. Runs Linux, boots from Linux, built-in ethernet, and has no fan or hard drive.

    The only disappointment is that it has no digital audio (SPDIF) output. No coax, no optical.. line level only. Ah well, MP3's aren't exactly hifi anyway.

    Enjoy!

    1. Re:Rio Receiver works GREAT from Linux! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree for under $100.00 it is great... unfortunately they jacked the price up to $170.00

      it aint worth it now.

    2. Re:Rio Receiver works GREAT from Linux! by Dr.+Ion · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's a bummer. I got mine from Tiger Direct for $99 in January. Keep watching, maybe they'll come back. $99 is the right price for these.

  31. A cheaper alternative... by bhorling · · Score: 1

    I've found that a cheap FM transmitter coupled with a regular PC makes a great music delivery device. Ramsey Electronics, among other companies, make a variety of FM transmitters that can take the sound output from your computer, and locally broadcast it to any radio or stereo you have. You don't need any other special equiment, get your favorite mp3 playing app on whatever OS you prefer and you're ready to go. The quality isn't anything to write home about, but for the price and the ability to use all your existing equipment, I think it makes a great choice. Just think, you can "stream" to your clock-radio in your bedroom!

    1. Re:A cheaper alternative... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you control it from the stereo? I mean, it seems silly to have to go to the PC to control what you listen to.

    2. Re:A cheaper alternative... by bhorling · · Score: 1

      A couple things, actually (neither of which give you stereo-based control over the music, but them's the breaks). The first is a web-based mp3 jukebox interface, so I can use a wireless laptop or whatever to pick individual songs or playlists. The second is to use an x10 remote to send signals to the computer, which it can react to in a variety of ways. In my case, I have it set up so I can start and stop the jukebox, or veto the currently playing song.

      Most of the time, I don't really care exactly what it's playing (it's all music I picked out anyway), so I'll just choose a playlist and let it go.

  32. Anyone read the spec page? by Garion911 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Box Contents:
    Windows 98, Windows 98SE, 2000, Millennium
    Intel Pentium 200 MHz MMX or higher CPU
    32MB RAM
    16MB of available hard drive space
    CD-ROM drive
    PNA or Ethernet adapter for PC

    Does that mean I get a PC too?

    --
    Slashdot is like Playboy: I read it for the articles
  33. There are linux servers available by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeff Mock has posted a great page dissecting the box from the inside.

    The best server (which has a LOT more functionality than the windows software, and doesn't crash when using more than 1000 songs either) is open source and available at jreceiver.sourceforge.net

    In short, this is a cheap (~$150) but powerful little unit that fits into the smallest spaces and runs Linux to boot. What more could you ask for? (Besides open-source code from the manufacturer, which would be nice but isn't going to happen)

  34. Re:Give us OGG support. OK, you got it! by Dr.+Ion · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Rio Receiver plays OGG files just fine, if you use JReceiver. JReceiver has some "transcoders" to handle non-native audio formats like OGG, so it converts your OGG files to MP3 on the fly while streaming them to the Rio Reciever.

    If you don't like that, you can always hack the Rio Receiver software yourself to add an OGG player. The whole mounted filesystem is there for you to play with. You can replace the whole player with Ogg Vorbis if you like.

  35. Shoutcast by LiENUS · · Score: 1

    but can it stream off a shoutcast server? I recently setup a shoutcast server along with a web interface to let someone pick the songs that play on it remotely from the web, is there a player like that that i can just point at my stream and have it play?

    1. Re:Shoutcast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try the Audiotron by Turtle Beach. It's a bit pricey at $299 but it has a lot of features and GREAT support. It supports streaming of Shoutcast/Icecast servers, all of which is setup through "Turtle Radio" website. Also the device supports WMA, WAV, and MP3 being "shared" from your computer.

      The support on this product is GREAT. The product did have its problems at the start and through their forum, listened to the users feedback and fix many of the problems. They are adding new features all the time to this device to make it better and better.

  36. Internet Radio ? by zykem · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hey, how about internet radio? when will the first linux hack come out and hopefully with internet radio and mp3 recording....

  37. Too bad... by Refrag · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    It's too bad the thing is so ugly no one would ever want to put it in their living room next to the rest of their stereo equipment.

    --
    I have a website. It's about Macs.
  38. Re:Why is this device not Open Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I realize now that I must have been foolish to have considered this to be an interesting product. I was tossing around the possibility of getting one, given the fact that there are at least a few open source servers available for it.

    But, now that you point out so clearly that this product is of absolutely no interest to me, I'll drop that idea. How stupid of me to think that I might possibly be interested in this product, now that you have expounded on the irrelevance of it to all of the hundreds of thousands of people here.

    I would like to extend my most sincere thanks to you for telling me that I must hate this product. Whew... no need to make a decision for myself, now.

  39. Re:Why is this device not Open Source? by kuiken · · Score: 1

    This article is a sad indication of the decline of Slashdot. Here we have a wholly closed and proprietary product, designed to work most effectively with Windows. I see not a word about a source release.
    cause the product is basicly hardware, and AFAIK there are sevral projects running to build a linux server.
    It is an outrage and an affront that Slashdot should help market such a product. That Slashdot should do so without questioning or even mentioning the proprietary nature of the product is well beyond mere "outrage"
    Well you seemed to have figuered it out that out of the box it only runs on windows, and so did most of the readers here

    It is an outrage and an affront that Slashdot should help market such a product. That Slashdot should do so without questioning or even mentioning the proprietary nature of the product is well beyond mere "outrage"
    well not all of us are so narrow minded, did your GSM/NIC/VGA card/Dig camera come with full source + linux support out of the box ? no then Why did you buy it ?
    Another factor might be that some of us like to hack stuff like this
    and
    Proprietary does not unstable, unreliable, and unmodifiable, my Proprietary router is working verry well and i've seen many proprietary things been hacked to do some verry funky stuff
    And speak for yourself, its not because you dont like samething other geeks have to feel the same

    --

    42
  40. Where to find $100 rio receiver by downashland · · Score: 1

    I can pay $100 for the rio, but a $150 is a little steep for me. Where can you get it for $100.

  41. HPNA == Home Phoneline Networking Alliance by Foresto · · Score: 1

    I didn't recognize the acronym, so here's a link for others who might not: HPNA

  42. Yeah, I might believe... by switcha · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If it turns out you get a Dell, I'd believe it.

    --
    You know what? ... A little club soda *did* get that out!
  43. $100? Where?! by big_eddy · · Score: 1

    The review states that discount places are selling these for $100. I've searched for the last half hour and I've found nothing close to that price. $99 would be a perfect price point for something like this. I would like to buy 3, but at a $170 I'll buy some cheap compact stereos instead.

  44. Can it stream uncompressed audio? by jms · · Score: 2

    Next question ... can it stream uncompressed audio. I have a large collection of lossless .shn files. Can this unit receive an uncompressed stream, or is it restricted to receiving MP3s and WMAs?

    Presumably I'd have to do some hacking to jreceiver or the like in order to decode the .shns, but what I'm really interested in is whether the player can accept an uncompressed stream. It would be pointless to take my nice, lossless files, and convert them to lossy .mp3 format just to listen to them.

  45. Ogg Vorbis Support? by pmcneill · · Score: 3, Interesting

    On this page on the Rio Receiver, it says it is "Upgradeable to support future audio formats". Has anyone made one of these work with an Ogg Vorbis codec?

  46. Pricey by the_rev_matt · · Score: 2

    At $170 bucks I think it's overpriced. Pick up a virgin webplayer or other hackable "network appliance" from a failed startup for $30 and staple an old hard drive to it and you have a much more versatile system for a lot less money.

    --
    this is getting old and so are you

    blog

    1. Re:Pricey by stickyc · · Score: 1

      I was thinking about this as a nightstand radio. I dont know what kind of nightstand you've got, but there's no way I can fit a PC, keyboard, and monitor on mine. Not to mention the HD whine keeping me up all night.

  47. Streamsicle. by Matt2000 · · Score: 2


    This sounds like the perfect thing to use to listen to your streamsicle server, check out the link in the sig.

    --

  48. It would be nice... by swordboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The funny part is that most entry level processor / media solutions these days have enough power to do more than just a couple tasks. The problem is that vendors *want* to offer a tiered product line for the sake of maximizing revenue/income.

    Take a look at VIA's new mini-ITX reference board. It is only 170mm square and they claim fanless operation with minimal power consumption. Target price is under $100 including processor. If a talented *someone* could sit down with linux and design a quality open solution for Mp3 devices, then it wouldn't be long before others add TV time-shifting, DVD, HDTV and possibly even gaming (in the future, near 3D will be plenty cheap), then consumers would have an option other than the standard-issue MS product that will eventually fill the market. You think that Sony can afford to put millions into playstation developement when all that MS has to do is reach into the PC parts bin? Playstation will be dead or X86-based real soon. The economies of scale just don't favor non-x86 anymore.

    My prediction:

    The various/uncollaborated open source projects will sit in alpha and beta stages while Microsoft toils away at a mediocre standard that works at the consumer's expense of an increased stranglehold. They've already started. Soon, they will expand their technologies to the automobile and soon everyone will have a car capable of communicating wirelessly with their Windows household. Your car's GPS will track every aspect of its life. Was/is little Billy speeding? What was my fuel mileage on the vacation last summer? How did it compare with this summer's vacation? Ah - the car is due for an oil change. I'll just find a local provider via the provided MS software and the map will be uploaded into the car's navigation system. Microsoft gets a small percentage of the oil change cost, of course. What about road hazzards? The ABS & GPS systems in the car could warn others of potentially slippery roads. Airbag go off? Warn others and call for an ambulance. Linux *could* do this but it won't because MS will establish themselves before it happens. Enough about the cars...

    My point is that while the linux community toils away at various different projects, they haven't a single focused effort in the new areas that will allow MS to continue their world domination. Back to the MP3 player:

    So what's the deal? Why can't some talented (not me or I would have done it) entity come up with a stripped down, lightweight, open version of Linux for the purpose of having an open-standard for consumers? Sure - their isn't much money in it but it *has to* happen if MS is to be toppled. It would seem like VIA would put some money into LinuxBIOS for their new mini-ITX form factor - they could sell processors for financial gain and subsidize this development. Soon, people would be piecing together their own DVD/MP3/DivX media players - and VIA would have a piece of the action. The pieces are all there but nobody ever bothers to try and put them together...

    Sigh...

    --

    Life is the leading cause of death in America.
  49. How about... by Emil+Brink · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Am I completely mistaken, or is there no device with the following features:
    • Small form factor
    • No fan
    • 10/100 Ethernet jack
    • Built-in amplifier
    • Plenty of analog (and digital) audio outputs
    ...that just listens to (unicast or broadcast) raw audio packets, sent over UDP, and converts them to analog, amplifies suitably, and emits them through analog outputs? Sure, it would waste more bandwidth than streaming and buffering a compressed stream, but it would, as I see it, have the following things going for it:
    • Very simple on-board software; no codedcs required
    • Automatically future-proof: if your computer can decode and transmit it, you'll hear it
    • Fairly low hardware requirements, no signal processing
    • Simple interface; a volume knob might be all you need.
    It seems to me such a device could be useful... Oh, and about the bandwidth: a full CD-quality stream is, as everyone knows, roughly 170 KB/s, or 1.6 Mbps. On a 10 Mbps net, that's rather heavy, but on a 100 Mbps LAN, I wouldn't care much. I mean, it's only for internal LAN use, afterall. So, am I nuts, or would such a box (which I imagine could be produced in the $50-$60 range) be good for anything? Is it already out there, and I've just missed it?
    --
    main(O){10<putchar(4^--O?77-(15&5128 >>4*O):10)&&main(2+O);}
    1. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am currently and have been working on something exactly like this. I am using an Atmel AVR micro controller (AT90S4433), ST Microelectronics MP3 Decoder chip (ST015) , and a Crystal (CS8900a) Ethernet chip. The final design will have a computer broadcast UDP packets of data and the box will receive them and stream the mp3.

    2. Re:How about... by firebat162 · · Score: 1

      i guess it depends on what you're going for. The way you have suggested it doesn't allow for you to select tracks and thus becomes more of an amplifier that receives its signal through ethernet. Wouldn't it then be cheaper to just have a long speaker cable to your speaker

    3. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What about a device that's:
      • built in your (digital) amplifier (no fan)
      • or on top of it, streaming to S/PDIF in (no fan either)
      • LAN connector (ethernet, 802.11, ...)
      • MP3 and OGG decoder
      • presets for internet radio stations
      • configurable by a web-interface (HTTP) from your PC
      ... come home, switch on the internet radio channel of your choice (don't wait for the PC to boot).
      ... or tune in to your PC, streaming your MP3 collection.
    4. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of lame-o /. reader turns off their computer when they leave?

    5. Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you say is true, but, my application is intended to be used in many places at once across a large network. In this case speaker wire would not be cheaper. My application will have an amplifier, volume control, and bass and treble control. The idea is to have many receivers anywhere on the local network and be able to broadcast music or messages to everyone at the same time.

  50. Re:Why is this device not Open Source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It is an outrage and an affront that Slashdot should help market such a product. That Slashdot should do so without questioning or even mentioning the proprietary nature of the product is well beyond mere "outrage".

    Since when was Slashdot strictly limited to discussions about open source products? Read the banner: "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." This article fits in just fine.

    It would be a lot nicer if we had more un-biased points of view instead of childish ranting about licensing issues.

  51. tempest! by mikeee · · Score: 2

    Actually, you don't need extra hardware at all, you can use your monitor as an AM transmitter:

    Tempest for Eliza

    Ok, the sound quality is lousy, but...

  52. Cheaper solution: buy old Pentium box for $50 by Chuck+Messenger · · Score: 1

    I use a dedicated computer in my stereo cabinet for that purpose. It has no keyboard, mouse or monitor -- its controlled via VNC. Cost, including shipping, was around $50.

    It's a bit of a pain having to boot it up each time I want to use it. But I've found it works fine to just power the thing off (without doing a shutdown).

    It would be nice if I could set it up so it would start playing the last-played playlist automatically after booting. You'd turn it on, and a couple minutes later, it would start playing something. No need for VNC access until you want to change playlists. That would be nice...

    1. Re:Cheaper solution: buy old Pentium box for $50 by big_eddy · · Score: 1

      I've toyed with this, too. But PC's are noisy. And when these devices are getting down in the $100 range, it's worth the money to not have to f**k with it. Unless you are looking for something to do, then your idea is fine.

    2. Re:Cheaper solution: buy old Pentium box for $50 by Chuck+Messenger · · Score: 1

      Of course, another advantage of a PC, vs a canned hardware device (if you know what you're doing) is that you can do alot more (e.g. play Ogg files, or do remote control with your browser, or play Internet radio, or whatever you can think of).

      But at $100 -- you're right -- its getting close to the point where I might just buy one to have a quickie solution.

      On the other hand, I hvae about 10 old PC's laying around -- I have to think of _something_ to do with them!

    3. Re:Cheaper solution: buy old Pentium box for $50 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      aren't there plenty of automation software options out there that would let your box start up, and do whatever the fuck you want, like loading winamp on startup and have the automation software press play? i know this could easily be done in WINDOWS.

  53. FM Transmitter? by Malc · · Score: 2

    Why bother spending $170 on this thing when $35 provides an FM transmitter? Talk about leveraging the wireless world! It has the added bonus playing other things too, such as internet radio. I already use one to listen to the BBC World Service in other rooms of my house. If I want an MP3 music mix for a party, I can create it on the computer and let it go.

  54. What about wireless? by moniker_21 · · Score: 2

    Seems to me this otherwise great product is somewhat tarnished, for me at least, by the fact that it isn't wireless capable. I mean, if I put this bad boy in my living room, that means I'd have to run an ethernet cable across my living room, through my kitchen, down a hallway, and into my room. Also, since I'm already jacked into the net via ethernet on my main Linux machine, which holds my mp3's, does this mean I have to get a second NIC card to plug the Receiver into?

    --
    I posted to /. and all I got was this stupid sig
    1. Re:What about wireless? by jchristopher · · Score: 1
      Also, since I'm already jacked into the net via ethernet on my main Linux machine, which holds my mp3's, does this mean I have to get a second NIC card to plug the Receiver into?

      They're called 'hubs', and you should look into one.

    2. Re:What about wireless? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, just hook it to your hub/switch...

  55. Allow me to translate by tswinzig · · Score: 3, Troll

    The receiver finds an available IP address- although it seemed to ignore our DHCP server and actually took our routers IP once! This isn't a fatal flaw..., but you may wanna double check when you set this thing up to make sure you don't get any surprises.

    Translation: The Rio DHCP client is broken.

    The interface on the front of the box takes a little getting used to.

    Translation: The Rio user interface sucks.

    The screen on the receiver leaves a lot to be desired.

    Translation: The screen on the Rio sucks.

    The Win98 software is very bare bones

    Translation: The Rio software sucks.

    Thank you.

    --

    "And like that ... he's gone."
  56. I don't get it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "this thing is priced to reasonably for people who want ... to stream audio from their PC to stereo"

    And how is that different from hanging a $3.00 patch cable from the Audio Out port on the sound card to the Audio In on the stereo amp? That leaves $97.00 for, umm, what exactly?

    1. Re:I don't get it. by WaKall · · Score: 1

      Might not be worth 97$, but the Rio Receiver controls whats playing, and your patch cable won't do that. You'll have to manipulate the PC that the other end of the cable is connected to.

  57. OOPS! by NetJunkie · · Score: 0, Redundant

    That's Linksys, not D-link. You can plug it in to a switch/hub for all your devices.

    Instant Wireless to Ethernet Adapter (WET11) - The Wireless to Ethernet Adapter enables any PC, printer, router, hard drive, or other Ethernet-equipped network hardware -- with wireless LAN connectivity. It acts as a wireless converter to bridge wireless and Ethernet. Use the Wireless to Ethernet Adapter interchangeably with your PCs and network hardware to extend and customize your wireless network to your needs.

  58. $150 at the TheNerds.net by Canabinol · · Score: 1

    You can get it for $150 at TheNerds.net and $158 from Gateway

    But I can't find it for $100 at any of my other Discount haunts...

    Canabinol.
    --
    A Teaspoon placed in a glass on the back seat of your car makes a handy audible gauge for road bump severity.

  59. Re:How about a processor less player? FM anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's called an FM transistor radio. The PC side is an FM transmitter...

  60. Updates to rioserve by leighklotz · · Score: 2
    I've been using Jeff's rioserve for a month or so and have sent him some updates. You might want to check back for these (and probably other people's) updates.
    1. Configuration is now in config.pl, not spread into multiple files.
    2. The home page now lets you list bu title, artist, album, or genre, not just by title
    3. There is now an 'edit' page which is what you get taken to by default when you click on a song. 4. You can edit any of the fields and it updates both the database and the MP3 file itself, if you have write permission and mp3info executable installed (I used mp3info-0.8.4-2)
    4. Instructions now include specific step-by-step directions for Apache, NFS, DHCP, and SSDP configuration.
  61. How do you listen to multiple programs at once? by mcmasuda · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What if someone in another room wants to listen to something other than what's being broadcast from the server?

    There was a comment similar to this one yesterday. I think you are missing one of the advantages of a setup like this - each receiver can play its own audio stream. If you don't want to do that, then an FM transmitter is fine. But if you want to listen to different things in different areas simultanously, then it doesn't help.

    1. Re:How do you listen to multiple programs at once? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if someone in another room wants to listen to something other than what's being broadcast from the server?

      most /.ers live alone .... even if there are other inhabitants of the same household !!!

  62. I've owned both the RIO and the Audiotron by zerofoo · · Score: 2

    The audiotron is by far better. Bigger display, audio component sized, and no additional software needed to make it work. Built in web browser configuration. The audiotron also streams audio off the web.

    My only gripe with either of these boxes is that they don't have TV output. TV output seems like it would be easy to do and it would add minimal cost to the unit ($50).

    The audiotron occasionally hangs when it encounters really long filenames or corrupt files, but in the year i've owened it i've only seen it happen twice.

    -ted

    1. Re:I've owned both the RIO and the Audiotron by stickyc · · Score: 2, Informative

      I picked up a pair of AT's, one for the bedroom and one for the living room. They're both conceptually very cool. In practice, they're not quite so perfect.
      The fact that you need to re-scan the entire library after a power cycle or to re-arrange tracks is horrible (it seems to clock in around somewhere around 1 minute per 1000 tracks). Navigating a large collection is almost impossible on the small screen. Creating playlists does help, but that adds even more overhead. I've also noticed frequent lockups while quickly surfing through tracks.

      Despite all my pains to archive/organize my music, I've ended up switching both units to Streaming Radio Mode only, which works very well.

    2. Re:I've owned both the RIO and the Audiotron by zerofoo · · Score: 2

      Agreed...I always wondered why it takes so long? After all, winamp on my computer takes alot less time to do essentially the same task.

      -ted

  63. With all due respect, a waste of money... by mblase · · Score: 2

    Why spend all that time setting up HomePNA unless you already have it for something else? And even if you do have it, you're still limited by the device's need to be close to a phone jack.

    Much more practical, I'd think, to get an FM transmitter installed in your PC, or even just attach one to your speaker jack. Noticably cheaper, than a Rio Receiver either way. This way you can pick up your MP3 collection from any FM radio in the house, even untethered battery-powered ones.

    1. Re:With all due respect, a waste of money... by dubl-u · · Score: 2

      Much more practical, I'd think, to get an FM transmitter installed in your PC [yahoo.com], or even just attach one to your speaker jack [drbott.com]. Noticably cheaper, than a Rio Receiver either way. This way you can pick up your MP3 collection from any FM radio in the house, even untethered battery-powered ones.

      Why that's brilliant! Of course, you'll need a little extra hardware if you want to actually control what you listen to.

      Aside from not having to run back to the computer to skip to the next song, the big advantage of these networked players is that not everybody has to listen to the same thing. A friend of mine has audiotrons around his house; he, his wife, and his daughter can all listen to different things.

    2. Re:With all due respect, a waste of money... by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      well....you COULD just use ethernet...

      Also, the receiver allows you to choose the content...whereas an FM transmitter requires the server to choose the content....

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
  64. Still a waste of money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    25' stereo patch cable: $2.50

  65. Why do we WANT portable MP3 recorders? by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 2

    They already exist, for one thing. The problem I have with recording audio to MP3 or MiniDisc is that you start off with a lossy compressed format. Solid state recording is finally starting to come into fruition, with companies like Nagra (and even the new Nomad) offering harddisk-based portable units. I'd personally rather have the option of recording to PCM/WAV (at either 16 or 24 bit) and doing any compression (probably SHN) on the "master" copy later on. Storage is so cheap now that there's no reason not to at least record in uncompressed format.

    - A.P.

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    1. Re:Why do we WANT portable MP3 recorders? by jargoone · · Score: 1

      I'd personally rather have the option of recording to PCM/WAV

      The Nomad Jukebox does this. But I can't figure for the life of me why they don't have an optical input on the thing. Then it would be perfect.

    2. Re:Why do we WANT portable MP3 recorders? by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 1

      If they'd bothered with a S/PDIF input, I can assure you it would be the only thing you'd see in the tapers' section. I'd be using one now if that were the case...

      - A.P.

      --
      "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
    3. Re:Why do we WANT portable MP3 recorders? by great_flaming_foo · · Score: 1

      I can't figure for the life of me why they don't have an optical input on the thing. It's a conspiracy. You see that would make it to easy for someone to bypass copy protection schemes. You just stream the output into the recorder, and tada, prefect copy. I think that would make it illeagal under the DMCA.

    4. Re:Why do we WANT portable MP3 recorders? by pyite · · Score: 1

      Your statement is entirely accurate. I own a nomad now. I have used it for recording... but only for band rehersals. The pre-amp only has a little headroom so it distorts somewhat quickly. If it had S/PDIF, geez, it would be an industry killer. Mine was $300. You can get them now for a lot cheaper. Add a 20GB hard drive, and S/PDIF, and an eco-charge battery/charger system, and a bag of granola, and you're set. One more thing- USB 2.0 or IEEE 1394. Reason: Using USB takes a long time to transfer all those WAV files. The idea of taping say... all of Gathering of the Vibes with no tapes drives me giddy.

      --

      "Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman

    5. Re:Why do we WANT portable MP3 recorders? by skinfitz · · Score: 1

      That's not a problem - that's what Serial Copy Management System (SCMS) is for; to prevent copying over digital links such as SP/DIF and optical.

  66. AS220 by MADCOWbeserk · · Score: 1

    Interesting, AS220 made Slashdot. Great place to drop by if you are ever in Providence, Rhode Island. Kind of an artist commune, bar, coffeeshop, gallery, and place to see shows rolled into one. I used to live near there thought it deserved the plug. especially since they have some oggs. AS220

    1. Re:AS220 by morgue-ann · · Score: 1

      Brian Jepson who's merited his very own Slashdot story worked with Josh (the creator of the bizzaro music referenced earlier) to help create the original AS220 web presence.

      Josh, Brian & I went to South Kingstown High School together where we made horrible git-fiddle noises until I moved away & they found an outlet @ AS220. My Dad still lives on the East Coast & he's read poetry there at the invitation of Buddy C. in some wierd kinda "Yeah! Providence" thing.

      There's more of Josh's stuff at AS220.org including a nice rant against NT, in favor of open source stuff.

      If Josh was still with us, I think he'd be making serious contributions to the OSS movement. He's still the smartest guy I've ever met. I've met Marvin Minsky and Zack Settel, but didn't get to know 'em enough to compare.

      You ever read the comic strip Steven? The old ones were Providence-centric. My favorite was when Brock & Steven went to jail, escaped by climbing into the toilet & through the sewer & came out at Lupo's Heartbreak Hotel. We used to by acid there from Bruce Springsteen on a skateboard.

      "Providence. Where it rains Where Friendship is a one-way street. Rich folks live on Power St. but most of us live off Hope.Providence. Where it snows four months out of the year, and the rest of the time rains like a bitch. Where Friendship is a one-way street. Where the rich folks live off of Power, and the rest of us live off of Hope."

      Reminiscing....

      It does make sense to me for there to be a connection between underground tech and underground culture. JWZ's DNA club sounds cool (I'm only 2 hours away, but a new father, so no time). I'm working with a guy at Grape Stake Studios on an anti DMCA/SSSCA musical work. There is common ground rich for exploitation here. Getting the message out about the threat of things like "trusted" operating systems using forms other than the written word and protests has merit.

  67. re: Rio Receiver Review by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're in the market for a device like this, check out the SliMp3 from www.slimdevices.com. It works with Linux and MacOSX as well as Windows and is a pleasure to use. Their support is excellent as well.

  68. FWIW - some of us DO hear a greater range by BLKMGK · · Score: 2

    I've had to have one of tjhose damned sonic motion sensors disabled in one office already. It was disabled by the tech using a sharp pointed pencil jammed into the snout of the device. When I asked him if that was a "standard" fix he replied that yes, it was! Apparently I'm not the only one who's heard the damned things and while the tech couldn't hear them himself he assured me that this fix has ALWAYS worked :-)

    Out of an office of about 30 people only two of us could hear the silly thing. It gave me massive headaches until we could figure out what the heck was going on. So yeah, there could be something in the higher or maybe lower ranges of a recording that some of us might find valuable. :-P

    Hrm, and when I burn a decently ripped MP3 to a CD, as in one I'VE ripped, it generally comes out pretty good. Others have come out crappy I'll admit but the ones I've taken care to do mostly right sound decent with no really apparent screwups. We'll see hwo this goes when I get my alpine MP3 player installed in the dash and I no longer have to convert the MP3 back to CD format...

    --
    Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
  69. Lots of outputs? by cheinonen · · Score: 1

    I don't know the last time I heard something with two outputs really being described as having lots of outputs. If it had Balanced XLR, Toslink, Coaxial, and at least two pairs of RCA outputs, that would be a lot. What are bare wire outputs for speakers as well? Are they spring clips, which are just horrible, or are they something like nice 5-way binding posts that accept bare wires, banana plugs, and spade lugs? Since you're writing this for a fairly technical audience, can't you look up the technical terms for the outputs on the device so we can know more about it? Oh, and is the headphone jack 1/4" or 1/8" in size?

  70. How do you tie a protocol to an OS? by Cardinal · · Score: 2

    Eh? A socket is a socket, last time I looked.

    In any case, this device is hardly obsolete. It has ethernet, it has an amplifier, and I can serve it from Linux. What more is there to talk about? I don't care if the manufacturer hasn't done anything new with the software, I intend to do a lot of stuff with the software.

    Besides, the protocol's already documented. It's not like this stuff is rocket science to figure out.

  71. It does have a remote control, and it does use CAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, It does have a remote control.

    And the control panel is easy enough for my family to use, and household guests. Not so with a computer in another room. The Rio is a combination UI device / remote speaker overy CAT5 -- it just talks ethernet over the CAT5.

  72. And in fact the open-source aspec tworks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the source comes with it, someone has re-compiled the kernel to make the volume control operate on line out as well as speaker out.

    1. Re:And in fact the open-source aspec tworks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And someone else has added code to automatically adjust the volume to normalize the level across all your MP3 files.

  73. Interesting comment about dial navigation by MysteriesAbound · · Score: 1
    Unfortunately, while the interface isn't bad, it's not great either. Given the sheer number of MP3s available to play, navigating through a huge list with just a dial isn't fun.
    the dial/wheel navigation UI is what sold me on an iPod. Navigating a 5GB collection with one hand is a breeze on it.
  74. Resource on Real-life Use of the Rio Receiver by helloRockview · · Score: 2
  75. Re:Broadcast on FM instead - Roll yer own by rco3 · · Score: 1

    I bought a SoundFeeder SF100 from BestBuy for $10. It has a 1/8" plug for sound input (soundcard, anyone?) and a cig lighter plug to power itself. I replaced the internal antenna with a 1/4 wave piece of wire, soldered an old cig. lighter adapter socket I had lying around to a HDD power cable / fan adapter....

    And now my computer directly powers my FM transmitter. Put a second soundcard in dedicated to the SF, and now I have XMMS crossfading through my playlist, all over the house.

    $10 SF100
    $9.50 Soundcard from compgeeks.com
    $2? Cig.lighter splitter to cannibalize

    Beats the hell out of the cost of the Ramsey FM25, which is bulkier and doesn't work any better without a seriously improved antenna.

    --

    Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
  76. $100 Soloution by kslayer56 · · Score: 1

    P75 Laptop w/ built in ehternet: $50
    IR Reciever w/ Universal remote [evation.com]: $50
    Give or take some tax and shipping, depending on your locaility, and you have your self a fine soloution.

    P75 is decent for both window$/linux use, and xmms supports winamp plugins so the factory software for the IR reciever will work out of the box.

    1. Re:$100 Soloution by ces1965 · · Score: 1

      I bought a powermac 7600 for $75, a G3 upgrade card for $75, usb card for $13, and plan to get a TV out PCI video card (ati xclaim) off ebay for maybe $60 (hoping to). Ethernet is built-in on the 7600. Already have a keyspan usb ir remote. Maybe I will get a macally wireless usb keyboard when OS X drivers are out. I served up my mp3 collection on my blue & white G3 running OS X using NFS (NFSmanager is great), mounted that share on the powermac 7600 and then simply added those mp3s to the iTunes library on the 7600 (took only a few seconds to process the mp3s). Internet radio works too. I'm hoping the TV out works, only question is whether I need a monitor attached when I boot. I'm assuming I don't.

  77. Oversample pushes DAC artifacts into analog region by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Also on the Scope i was using was set to just connect the dots and not to do any kind of shaping of the wave.

    Most DACs are sample'n'hold (turning waves at half sample rate into square waves), but "oversampling" DACs operate at 88 kHz or higher, using various methods of interpolation and convolution to drive the aliasing artifacts well into the high frequencies (30 kHz and above) where analog filters can easily take care of them. Some DACs (called "sigma-delta" or "1-bit") use only 1 bit per channel but run in the near-MHz range, letting the analog filters remove the dithering.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  78. Greater range or not? by yerricde · · Score: 1

    Out of an office of about 30 people only two of us could hear the silly thing. It gave me massive headaches until we could figure out what the heck was going on. So yeah, there could be something in the higher or maybe lower ranges of a recording that some of us might find valuable. :-P

    You're probably not hearing >19 kHz audio but rather stuff in 5-20 kHz. Those annoying toys often have DACs that operate at about 8 kHz, which leaves aliasing artifacts all over the spectrum from 4 kHz up. (4 kHz is about the frequency of the highest note on a standard piano.) They also tend to have cheap analog filters that don't do a good job of killing the aliasing.

    --
    Will I retire or break 10K?
  79. Funny you mention that... by clump · · Score: 2

    ...because thats exactly what I do. I have a 'media server' that basically acts as: a DVD/Divx;) player, MP3 server/streamer (for playing the same thing in multiple places in my apartment. I don't need a seperte device for that ), MAME console, and cool distracion. I use the computer to watch tv (via a TV-out vid card) and use a wireless keyboard as a glorified remote control.

    To avoid ugly cat5, I have a DWL-650 wireless card/bridge setup in it and connect it to a Linksys WAP. Its not a bad idea for an old AMD K6III-450.

  80. Mac server? by sulli · · Score: 1

    Since I have several Macs at home running iTunes, and also an iPod, I'm probably not switching to windows or linux to serve mp3s to the stereo .. BUT it would be nice to serve them over ethernet to a SliMP3. Can I do this with Mac (OS9 preferable, OSX okay)?

    --

    sulli
    RTFJ.
    1. Re:Mac server? by seanadams.com · · Score: 2

      Since I have several Macs at home running iTunes, and also an iPod, I'm probably not switching to windows or linux to serve mp3s to the stereo .. BUT it would be nice to serve them over ethernet to a SliMP3. Can I do this with Mac (OS9 preferable, OSX okay)?

      We've always supported OSX - it's got real Unix+Perl underneath, so it runs great.

      OS9 is another story. We supported OS9 in V1.0 of our software, but after that we decided to drop support because all the bugs/limitations in the ancient MacPerl. Just a couple days ago, they finally released a MacPerl 5.6.1, so there's a good chance we'll be able to get it running on Classic MacOS, too.

    2. Re:Mac server? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      excellent. i'll watch for it.

  81. You can do that with a Rio Receiver by pslam · · Score: 2, Informative
    Am I completely mistaken, or is there no device with the following features:
    • Small form factor
    • No fan
    • 10/100 Ethernet jack
    • Built-in amplifier
    • Plenty of analog (and digital) audio outputs

    ...that just listens to (unicast or broadcast) raw audio packets, sent over UDP, and converts them to analog, amplifies suitably, and emits them through analog outputs?

    Actually yes. It's the Rio Receiver. I've set mine up to do this in the space of an hour before. It NFS boots (once you handle the UPnP/SSDP protocols) and all you have to do is get it to automatically run netcat or something and pipe it to /dev/dsp.

    It's small, there's no fan in it, it's got ethernet, and it has a good quality built-in 10 watt amplifier. No digital output unfortunately.

  82. 15,000 songs and 80 gigs later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    15,000 songs and 80 gigs of MP3 laters, this is a godsend.
    I bought the Dell version for $250.00. It was the best geek expenditure of my life. I have over
    1200 CDs and nowheere to store them. Now, I have several of these units ($100 at Tiger Direct).
    This device, alone, is the most impressive toy for house-guest. I can count scoring with at least 6 chicks
    because they wanted to stay over and hear my "music" collection. I can't say the same for anything else
    geeky I have. It is truly a nice toy except navigating 15,000 songs is a bitch. You really
    need to set up playlists to make it practical, shuffle, or play randomly.
    I've upgraded it (got it off the web) so I can now control the unit with a web browser.

    But, if I had to do it again, I would pay $300 for it. It is quiet and easy to use (even for my non-geek friends),.
    I used to have a Linux sever in my living room but the fan/harddrive noise killed it.

    This is quiet and has a remote control.

  83. Make your own! by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 1

    I made my own by running a wire from my linux server to my home stereo. I then wrote a Perl web interface to madplay which controls the mp3 playlist etc. I can start playing MP3's from my Audrey, laptop or even a Palm VII. Personally, I found it a lot of fun and really didn't cost anything besides the wire. It's also a lot of fun to start playing an MP3 from work while your wife is home ;-) Check it out if you're interested: http://www.fperkins.com/news/archives/00000001.sht ml

  84. Re:Make your own - GOOD LINK by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Stupid slashdot keeps inserting a space in my link. Here you go:

    More info...

  85. And it helps to avoid Canada's tax on mp3 storages by Nephrite · · Score: 1

    Because it gets mp3's without having a storage itself :-) Check out a recent story

  86. Re:Windows Testing? by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 1

    Are you stupid, or just dumb?

    The only people who read at -1 are trolls.

    Yes, nobody else reads at -1, especially not people like me who have actually been here for a while and like to read everyone's comments, not just those of new-guard slashdroids like you.

    Maybe if you'd been here in 1997 when anyone could post under any nickname and things that really were funny were just funny and not Score +5, Funny Yet The Worst Joke Ever, and things that were insightful weren't +5, Insightful Yet Author Is Completely Full Of Bullshit you'd understand.

    Of course, if you're really just a troll yourself, I salute you.

    - A.P.

    --
    "Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"