Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media Hardware

SliMP3 Successor; Radio Station in a Box 204

Posted by michael 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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SliMP3 Successor; Radio Station in a Box More

SliMP3 Successor; Radio Station in a Box

Comments Filter:

  • Hmm (Score:3, Interesting)

    by B3ryllium ( 571199 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @04:31PM (#7504963) Homepage
    One thing I'm not too clear on; does it stream from shared folders, or does it have an internal HD? Or perhaps both?

    • Re:Hmm (Score:2, Informative)

      by jsav40 ( 614902 )
      As near as I can tell it can stream from shared folders. I'm *very* tempted to get one of these.
      • I've got about a half-dozen other devices on my wishlist before this one, but yeah. It sounds cool. :) Of course, my computer has better speakers than my stereo, so I'm not sure how useful it would be. :)

    • Re:Hmm (Score:5, Informative)

      by bloosh ( 649755 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @04:41PM (#7505059)
      Just like the slimp3, it has no internal hard drive and it does not read from SMB, NFS, whatever shares.

      You install the software (written in perl) on your Linux, BSD, OSX, Windows whatever machine and tell it where your collection is located.

      That's it.

      You may control the device from either the provided remote control or via web interface (http://localhost:9000).

      • Re:Hmm (Score:2, Informative)

        by reidspice ( 114313 )
        you mean to say that it *does* read from SMB, NFS, whatever. i have one and i use it with an NFS share from a linux box to win2k server and it works like a champ.

    • Re:Hmm (Score:5, Informative)

      by sben ( 71467 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @04:42PM (#7505070)
      I have a SliMP3 (predecessor device). MP3s are served up by an open-source streaming server, to which the SliMP3 (and Squeezebox) connect. The server runs on Unix, OS X, and Windows -- pretty much any OS with a modern Perl implementation. The device can connect to multiple servers running on different boxes; the server also plays nicely with iTunes.

      Other streaming MP3 clients can connect to the server, e.g. iTunes, etc.

      Playlists can be built with a web server built in to the streaming server (or via the remote, but that's a little less convenient).

    • Re:Hmm (Score:2, Funny)

      by bongoras ( 632709 ) *
      my mommy's got one of those squeezeboxes... now my daddy never sleeps at night.
  • While the successor's new features are certainly cool (I specially like the digital audio out) I prefered the original SliMP3's look. It just looked more exclusive, didn't have that cheap plastic look.

  • A special bonus offer! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Included FREE in every box, on RIAA subpenoa!

  • A day without MP3? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Thinkit3 ( 671998 ) *
    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 a

    • Re:A day without MP3? (Score:5, Informative)

      by kefoo ( 254567 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @04:35PM (#7505005)
      According to the product brochure, FLAC and Ogg are both supported via on the fly software conversion, so the support is there, albeit not native to the hardware.
    • Article slashdotted, but rather than waiting for an ogg or flac version (I use both, I'm on your side) how about decoding your files and streaming as WAV at 1.44Mbits/s (which is do-able over 802.11b) or transcoding to MP3 (flac to mp3 is fine, ogg to mp3 is only an issue for audiophiles).
    • mp3 was the format with highest circulation at the time napster was created hence, napster searched for mp3 files. Napster opened the digtial music market to the masses.

      Although there are way, way better formats, mp3 is what people understand the best and have the most of. I don't know many people with the patience or understanding to reformat all the music they already have.

      The next format to take hold will be whatever format the new music services choose to give us. Right now, AAC seems to be taki

    • Re:A day without MP3? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Ahhhh. Another nugget of wisdom and insight from the "XBox must run Linux", "all devices must support OGG!", "Darl McBride must die", "Apple can do no wrong", "the RIAA is teh evil" and "M$ is teh sux" crowd. What would Slashbork be without you fellows? An empty, forgotten blog for pasty loser nerds, if at all. Viva la revolucion commandante!

      Tell you what - you implement a "Day Without Oxygen" protest and I'll think about going without MP3s for a day as well. K? Let me know. thnx!

    • Re:A day without MP3? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sben ( 71467 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @04:49PM (#7505136)
      People buy stuff that works. The SliMP3 works, and I can't think of why the Squeezebox won't. Ogg is like Betamax -- while theoretically better, isn't Better Enough to make 99.9% of the world care about it. I'd be as thrilled as anyone if it took off some day, but in the meantime, while you're fuming about formats, I'm enjoying my MP3s streamed to my SliMP3 player (and casting envious looks at that Squeezebox).

    • Re:A day without MP3? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dr_dank ( 472072 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @04:51PM (#7505161) Homepage Journal
      It's patent-encumbered and lossy, yet has somehow permeated popular culture

      True, but its freely available and the difference in sound quality between a 256k encoded mp3 and the source cd is negligible at best.

      Most of the public are not audiophiles. The music lovers listen to the music. Audiophiles listen to the equipment. ;)

    • Re:A day without MP3? (Score:5, Informative)

      by seanadams.com ( 463190 ) * on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @04:53PM (#7505167) Homepage
      You are mistaken.

      Squeezebox supports (uncompressed) PCM passthrough. WAV, AIFF, Ogg, and Flac are all supported, can all be played now without transcoding.

      In fact, it is trivially simple to hook just about any codec you want into the server now.
    • Dude, it's written in Perl. Take the code and strip the mp3 support and add .ogg support. That way, in addition to feeling smug because you are SUCH an 3l33t h4x0r, you'll be doing something instead of bitching! (just a practical suggestion...)
      • As I understand it (which may well be imperfectly) the decoder is in the firmware in the device, not the Perl code. And if I recall correctly (which I almost certainly don't) the reason Ogg wasn't originally supported on the firmware was because the chip in the device didn't have the oomph to decode an Ogg stream on the fly.

        As far as the Perl/server-side is concerned, you can already stream .ogg files. But there's nothing you can do there to add support to the firmware.
    • If you don't mind streaming raw audio, and have some way of decoding on the server, you can play any format you want.

      You can do the same on the SLIMP3, but it needs to be transcoded into MP3 before being sent to the player. With the Squeezebox, it just uses the raw PCM output from the decoder of your choice.

      There will most likely be support for some sort of lossless compression between the server and the Squeezebox eventually, but that wasn't a priority for the initial release.

  • Jealous (Score:3, Informative)

    by Fux the Penguin ( 724045 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @04:33PM (#7504987) Journal
    Geez, why did I know I would see this here? I just got my SLIMP3 two weeks ago. I can't speak for the Squeezebox, but if it's anything like the SliMP3, go for it. I love the thing.

    I like most everything about the device. It's easy to setup and control, sounds and looks great, and is actively supported by its developers and fans. There is an extensive FAQ and a popular support mailing list.

    There are, however, a few things I would like to have seen, that the Squeezebox fixes. First, the SliMP3 is wired only. You can hook it up to a wireless bridge to make it "virtually wireless" but that's not an out-of-the-box solution. With many competitors releasing wireless solutions, SlimDevices caught on and developed their own. The SlimP3 also does not have an optical audio output. An optical connection would make the sound quality even better, however, most users would not notice a difference.

    The display is a little small, and hard to read from across the room. However, most competing products display via a TV, meaning you'd have to be near a TV to select the music you want. The SLIMP3 doesn't require a TV and looks at home in your home theater system.

    I thought it was definitely worth the $239 price, but now I wished I'd waited two weeks and got the Squeezebox for $299 :( Oh well.
    • 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.
      • 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 forme
        • >turn a TV for music

          Ah, you mean like in your car....

          >all you needed was the player and a remote. ....and a computer and a music library and a network.

          Funny... Your computer has a display and you turn it on to listen to music. Try again.

          You may want to know about something new called 'home theater'.
          • I have a home theater system. I still think it is lame to turn on my TV to listen to music. TV navigation would be a nice feature to have, but it is much more important to have a good front panel display.

            Even if my TV is on, I would like to control the music while playing video games on my TV.

            I don't like listening to music on my computer, either. It is not too annoying when I am just using it to play background music while I am working on my computer, mostly because it is essentially free, bu even the
            • >but even then I would prefer to have a music playing device

              Then get an iPod and have a portable as well. (can't wait for the issues you have with this)

              >Even if my TV is on, I would like to control the music while playing video games on my TV.

              PIP works for me...again, on a TV. (and my computer monitor)
          • Get a grip and try and learn to discuss without being insulting.

            Yes, I have heard of 'home theater'. However, I don't want a TV in my garage; all I want is music.

            I work on bikes, cars, wood and metal in my garage. Electronics don't last long because of the dusty and sometimes dirty environment. If I have your 'home theater' in my garage, I need a PC a TV, a keyboard, a mouse, an amp and speakers. I need a low, flat place to put them (at least the keyboard and mouse). I need to replace them every few years
      • That depends on whether you have a TV handy to serve as your display. I've got a SLIMP3 and stereo in my bedroom, but no functioning TV (nor do I particularly want a functioning TV in my bedroom).
      • TVs, even LCD or plasma displays, produce HF noise. I don't want them on when I'm trying to listen to music.

        I should put my money where my mouth is and buy one...
    • You can switch the text mode to "big" where you only get the bottom line of the display, but the text is twice as big. That is the way I use my slimp3. I can read the small text from across the room, but not easily. It would be nice if the display were about 50% larger, but I suspect that would be considerably more expensive (and involve a custom VFD instead of a standard size)

  • in jail (Score:2, Interesting)

    by akaina ( 472254 ) *
    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?

  • I have a better solution... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by The_Rippa ( 181699 ) * on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @04:36PM (#7505021)
    $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!

    • Re:I have a better solution... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Enry ( 630 ) <enry.wayga@net> on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @04:42PM (#7505073) Journal
      Spend the $299.

      I've had a SLIMP3 for the past year and would not trade it for anything (cept a squeezebox). The biggest thing is portability - I can leave it in the bedroom for music, move it to the backyard for the BBQ parties, move it to the living room to play holiday tunes, and take it to the kitchen when friends come over to play cards. All you need is an Ethernet run to the room - Squeezebox removes the cords altogether.

      The UI is intuitive, the web interface rocks, and it's really easy to use.
      • Do you know if there are any slimp3 emulation clients for the streaming server? I've been looking around freshmeat and there is an embarassment of offerings, but I figure a company with a vested interest in making these things ought to have the most polished product.

        I have an audrey lying around that I need to do something with, ya see.

        Johan
        • It's just an mp3 stream. You can use iTunes, xmms, windows media player and winamp for sure. I assume other players would work but these are the only ones I've tested. I run a slimp server at home and stream to work. I had to add some code to knock my mp3s down to 128Kb/s on the fly since my cable modem limits my upstream bandwidth.
          • Check out the new conversion framework in the 5.0 server, it handles the bitrate conversion for you.
          • I dunno. Seems to me that there has to be some communication for the UI stuff. The client has to display availible play lists, current song, that sort of thing, and send the remote control commands back to the server.

            But if you say you've used xmms as a front end, I'll believe you.
            • The UI comes from pointing a browser at the SlimServer to set up the playlist for the stream going to your MP3 playing software.

              So, say there was a SlimServer running at Slashdot.org. Then the URL you would point xmms or winamp or iTunes or whatever at would be:

              http://slashdot.org:9000/stream.mp3

              Then, to set up the playlist you would point your browser at:
              http://slashdot.org:9000

        • I'm not aware of any, but you'd probably just want to set up shoutcast and broadcast that way.
      • Squeezebox removes the cords altogether

        Except, obviously, the power. You can't power devices via 802.11a/b/g or bluetooth.
      • Rio Receivers. New ones are $75.00 and they have built-in 10W/channel amplifiers, HomePNA and Ethernet. I have four of them all being served by a FreeBSD box running Jreceiver. If want wireless I can add a bridge.
    • Or...

      Xbox: $179
      Modchip: $50
      XBMP or XBMC: Free

      Total: $229

      Even cheaper and you can play games on it.
    • I love TiVo. I have one Series 1 model and am planning on getting two Series 2 models. However, you're cost analysis is a bit off.

      $299 for Squeezebox or...

      $199 TiVo
      $12.95/Month or $299/Lifetime
      $99 Home Media Option
      $50 Wireless USB Adapter

      Grand Total: $647, assuming this is your first TiVo purchase and you opt for the product lifetime subscription.

      Anyway, the two devices are quite different. Sure, they overlap functionality, but one requires a TV and the other doesn't. They can be quite complimentar
    • or $249 for the Sound Blaster Wireless Music [creative.com] which is a similar "wireless DAC," but the display is on the remote.

      I really wish Slim had moved in this direction because I'd much rather use their open source server than Creative's Mediasource.

      I don't see well enough and rooms in my house are big enough that I won't be able to read a Squeezebox across a room, but I don't want a TV-output option (CRT warm up time, power consumption, size, home theater video routing nightmare, etc.)
      • That remote is pretty cool. Too bad if you lose it though. The main reason I can see for Slim Devices not going in this direction is complexity and cost.

        Creative deals in much greater volumes than Slim Devices, so can make such a custom remote affordibly.

        But you can get similar (actually greater) functionality with the Squeezebox. Just get yourself a PDA with a wireless connection and a web browser.
      • or $249 for the Sound Blaster Wireless Music which is a similar "wireless DAC," but the display is on the remote.
        $249 plus ~$200 for a WinBox to run the server (assuming use of the spare VGA monitor).

        Some of us don't do Windows, remember?

        My SqueezeBox is already on order and I have a potential buyer for one of the SliMP3s to defray the cost a bit.

      • >or $249 for the Sound Blaster Wireless Music which
        >is a similar "wireless DAC," but the display is on
        >the remote.

        I like the display on the remote idea, but it looks like the Creative gadget only supports .mp3 and .wma. I've already ripped my entire collection as .wav files, and have no intention of compressing them (for home use, anyhow).

        You also have to wonder how much power a remote like that takes, since I'm assuming it's both a transmitter and a receiver with a fairly large display. Must c
    • I might have to pick the Prismiq [prismiq.com] at $249 and add a wireless adapter. It also serves up video and has a beta Linux server [prismiq.org].

      Harry

  • 10% to EFF (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @04:37PM (#7505034)
    They are also donating 10% of net profits [slimdevices.com] from squeezebox to the EFF.
    Read that page - they even make a little jab at the DRM music stores. Pretty bold...
  • Apparently, it can run web servers too, although obviously not very well ...
  • I hope they decide to carry this product so I can put it on my wishlist.
  • Right there [windowsfordevices.com] in the title tag. Makes it that much easier to know what you're dealing with. Or not, as the case may be.

    I do have a question though: They say "WorldVibrations says the WVRS can operate fully automated and unattended, precisely scheduling programs, music, and announcements 24 hours a day, seven days a week.". So do they consider dead air from reboots and BSOD to be part of the programming?

  • Momma's got a squeezebox, Daddy never sleeps at night?

    Wonder if they'll use it in the ad campaigns..
  • I'm an IleSansFil [ilesansfil.org] volunteer and was just wondering if there are any other uses for this "cheap" box.
  • ...what the value of this is, at $299, when i can get a decent set of wireless speakers for under $100, and run those off my pc? Can anyone help me here? It's probably pretty obvious, and I'm just blind to the advantages...
    • true,

      but unlike wireless speakers, this system grows with you. Want sound in your living room as well as your tv room, buy a new $300 unit and hook up some powered speakers to it.

      I didn't RTFA, but I'm assuming each unit can either stream a common "channel", or choose its own play list.
      Likewise, each unit should have its own digital volume control.

      If it has these features, it compares VERY nicely to the wire-your-house-for-sound systems out there. Ever try to price a B&O system (not that they sell o
    • One, you control it with a remote control in your living room. Two, if you have $500 (or more!) speakers you can use them with this. Three, it can plug into your home stereo/home theater amplifier and be integraded along side your CD/DVD/PS2/whatever. Four, it is transmitted as digital PCM over wireless ethernet rather than analog FM modulation (which is how many wireless speakers work), so there will be no sound degredation as the link fades until it is no longer able to maintain the bandwidth required.
  • Also, they have arranged to donate 10% of profits from the sale of these to the EFF [eff.org]
  • The reason I went with the Turtle Beach Audiotron instead of this device is because it does not need any kind of back-end server running in order to access music files. This is an issue for me, as all my media is stored on a home NAS (Linksys Gigadrive).
    The cool part about the Audiotron is that you simply point it at any SMB shares (thru its built-in web interface) and it'll scan for music on those shares. Works great - with no need for a separate PC working as a middle-man to point to the files.

  • Look ma! It's a cd3o! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sunspot42 ( 455706 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @06:10PM (#7505976)
    Looks like they're finally catching up to where cd3o [cd3o.com] 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.
    • The SLIMP3 was first. The cd3o beat Slim Devices to market with wireless and digital out, but that is it .

      The Voice Guide of the cd3o sounds interesting, but there is nothing stopping a similar feature being added to the SLIMP3/Squeezebox. As for the WAV tagging, as soon as a CPAN module supports it, so will the SLIMP3/Squeezebox.

      That is the power of open source. Missing features can be added by whoever wants to take the time to implement them.

      If you like the cd3o's remote better, guess what, you coul
      • >The SLIMP3 was first. The cd3o beat Slim Devices to
        >market with wireless and digital out, but that is it.

        Actually, they beat them to market with several features:

        * Wireless
        * Uncompressed streams (the SLIMP3 was MP3-only)
        * Voice guide
        * Support for tagged uncompressed files
        * Support for Windows Media Audio

        >If you like the cd3o's remote better, guess what,
        >you could probably modify the SLIMP3/Squeezebox
        >code to be able to use it.

        Guess what - if I'm paying $300 for a device that does the sam
    • cd30 windows only (unless someone has written a server) and it has not display.
    • Yeah but cd3o's software only runs on winxp or 2000.

      (The cd3o Music Server software is currently supported on Windows XP and 2000 only. We do not currently have plans for other platforms.)

      Doesn't look like its controllable from a web browser on a different computer, its either on the pc hosting the software or via the remote.

      cd3o is $199 now with special pricing, looks like it was 240 or 250 without it. The controllable via web interface and being able to toss the software out on a linux box with a big
      • >Yeah but cd3o's software only runs on winxp or 2000.

        Not quite. Someone has written a Linux server [cd3o.com] for the cd3o. They've also added on Ogg Vorbis support.

        It isn't controllable from a web browser on another computer, but I believe you could access the Windows PC remotely and control the server that way. There might be other methods outlined in the Support forum. It's not of any interest to me - I only own one computer. I was going to build a separate media PC for streaming audio, but the cd3o elimi
        • "I'm not sure how you're "freeing up" your Windows box by tossing a huge drive in your Linux box. I'd rather have the giant drive in a Windows system - they're more likely to need that kind of storage, and Windows seems to still have better media management tools than Linux."

          Right now I have a 30GB HD in my windows machine to store my mp3's and a separate 80GB for everything else, but I use my windows machine for playing games, doing work, and other stuff. I'd rather not have a process running on there th
    • Actually, the SlimServer does support ID3 tags in WAV files and has for a while.

      And the cd30 only supports windows because they use the crappy windows speech synthesis to create almost recognizable facimiles of the information in your ID3 tags.
      • >Actually, the SlimServer does support ID3 tags in WAV
        >files and has for a while.

        Interesting. I went to their website today and couldn't find any information regarding support for .wav tags. Which .wav tag format does it support? There isn't any standard (Micro$loth apparently didn't think to include any metadata like that in the original .wav specification).
  • This looks like a great product, and the perfect way to integrate your MP3 collection into your stereo system, but I have to ask what kind of markup they're getting at $300. Does it really cost a lot to produce these, or for that matter R&D it from the SliMP3? Or, is this just the price that people are willing to pay so that's where you price it? I'm not deniying them the right to make a profit, I think it's great if they can, I'm just wondering what something like this costs to produce.
  • are they a mute?
  • I have a similar setup. I have an old computer serving up web pages, acting as a file server, and playing music through RoomJuice and MPG321. I just ran some speaker wire and a cut up RCA cord to my reciever. Works like a charm. And it was totally free.

Slashdot Top Deals

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Close