Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SliMP3 Successor; Radio Station in a Box

Posted by michael on from the geeks-in-space-reborn dept.

XDG writes "Slim Devices just updated their website and announced The Squeezebox, the Wi-Fi successor to the SliMP3 player. The new hardware adds digital output, support for uncompressed WAVs, and, of course built-in 802.11. And, best of all, it's still a simple front end hardware device running on upgradeable, customizable, 100%-open-source server software. Anyone that owns or ever drooled over a SliMP3 has something new for their holiday wish lists!" We also have a submission about a "digital radio station in a box" from World Vibrations.

8 of 204 comments (clear)

  1. Hmm by B3ryllium · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One thing I'm not too clear on; does it stream from shared folders, or does it have an internal HD? Or perhaps both?

  2. A day without MP3? by Thinkit3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's patent-encumbered and lossy, yet has somehow permeated popular culture. This is yet another device that has MP3, but not FLAC or ogg. I'd buy something that announced as a feature the absence of MP3 support! Sure it's only a few cents to the price, but it's great not to have that baggage around. Somewhat like a language that doesn't support decimal. Think of what the historians will say about "MP3"--just an example of something imperfect can effect popular culture, but then die down as a useless artifact of the past.

    --
    -Libertarian secular transhumanist
    1. Re:A day without MP3? by gpinzone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I really gotta know... Can you honestly say that an MP3 encoded at a constant 320 kbps using LAME sounds inferior to a FLAC (or WAV) version on your equipment? I understand that MP3 is lossy, but come on. FLACs are about 50% - 60% of the original WAV file. MP3s at the highest encoding level are still smaller and will work in with any modern MP3 decoder. Is there THAT much of a noticable fidelity loss between the two?

    2. Re:A day without MP3? by krbvroc1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think your analogy is quite fair. One of the benefits of the slimdevices product is its portability - put it in anyroom in the house without having to install/drag around a PC. However, by not supporting a wider variety of audio formats in the hardware you shift the transcoding burden to *some* other machine in your house. I just wanted to point out that if that machine in your house is in use by others while you are listening to your tunes (non MP3 or raw uncompressed), they might not like it due to the heavy CPU load. In my case, I put all my tunes in max rate VBR MP3, but others here posted they wanted Flacc or Ogg Vorbis, etc.
      I mentioned the RF interference because the slimdevice tech support told me the same thing, "That was an issue with some early SLIMP3 models". However, this was a model I ordered just a few months ago so unless it had been sitting around on the shelves, I think the RF problem remains for a limited number of people with the SLIMP3. Its great to hear that you did it right with the Squeezebox - though source of the noise of the SLIMP3 seemed to be the VFD display.
      I'm glad to see your product is successful - its a good idea.

  3. in jail by akaina · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So could one end up in jail for 3 years for "broadcasting" copyrighted material on a "public network" if a means comes along to sniff the 802.11 data back into a copyrighted file?

    --
    Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose.
  4. I have a better solution... by The_Rippa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    $299 for this OR...

    $199 - Tivo
    $50 - USB Wireless Adaptor
    $50 - Home Media Option
    $0 - JavaHMO (Streaming music)

    Problem solved, same price and I get to skip commercials!

  5. Re:most competing products display via a TV by Skynyrd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And that's a good thing. They also display movies and photos/slideshows. Not having this ability puts the SB at a distinct disadvantage, and relegates it to the narrow niche of audio player. What's called a display is just a readout. I mean for C'sakes, even my phone can do movies and snapshots.

    OK, but I don't want a TV connected to my stereo. All I want is music.

    I think it's really lame to have to turn on a TV just to listen to music, and that's one of the things I really like about the Slimp3. A former roomate had one, and the interface was better than any other thing on the market (no keyboard, no mouse, no TV) - all you needed was the player and a remote.

  6. Look ma! It's a cd3o! by sunspot42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Looks like they're finally catching up to where cd3o has already been for the past year - a wireless media receiver that can play uncompressed streams. I like the fact the Squeezebox can apparently transcode to uncompressed PCM from other formats (like .ogg) on the fly - cd3o doesn't support that feature yet - but it also costs $100 more than the cd3o.

    Worse, it apparently doesn't support any kind of tagging for .WAV files or other uncompressed files. The cd3o supports MusicMatch's .WAV tagging abilities, allowing you to seamlessly integrate both compressed and uncompressed files into your library. And the cd3o also sports a better remote and their "voice guide", which eliminates the need for any kind of physical display. The Squeezebox has a nice little display, but the keyword here is little. There's no way you'd be able to read that from across a large room without a telescope, and managing playlists on it would be impossible.

    As it stands, I'd still give the edge to cd3o, provided they get their act together concerning the ability to transcode other formats to uncompressed PCM for streaming to the receiver. But it is nice to see their design approach being validated by their competitors.