You are here

Log in or register to post comments
dumbo
dumbo's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 5 days ago
Joined: Sep 26 2009 - 6:59pm
Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question

Hello, I was curious to know from those who own one of these devices if it is capable of reading music files directly off of an external NAS drive without the need for music library software (ie..itunes..etc) on a computer somewhere?

In terms of connectivity I was thinking along the lines of hooking a CAT5 directly from the external NAS to the Logitech devices network port.

Another way to word the question would be, do these things have the ability to index and or search thru a directory of music files on their own or is the dreaded library software needed? I'm not sure if these devices have any sort of small scale internal storage (ie..ram/flash) to hold album art and such.

Personally, I feel iTunes is the devil in disguise and getting away from it would be a huge plus. Also I think a more direct connection to the music files would be a nice plus as well since there would be no routing involved thru another devilish device such as a Linksys box...

Network bandwidth isn't really a concern of mine as any 10mb connection should be more then sufficient for music streaming but it seems to me that having a switch/router inline between the source and destination could increase the possibilities of introducing things like packet collisions, speed/duplex mismatches, and other destructive/disruptive problems with the stream.

Thanks for any info you can provide

bertdw
bertdw's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 5 days ago
Joined: Sep 18 2007 - 5:41am
Re: Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question

The Squeezebox devices use software called Squeezebox Server. There is a special version for use on a NAS. My Squeezebox Duet can connect via CAT5 to my router, so I don't see why it wouldn't with a NAS. You can find much more information at the Squeezebox forums:

http://forums.slimdevices.com/index.php

Have a look through the Squeezebox Server or the Third Party Hardware forums, or use the search feature.

andy19191
andy19191's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 25 2006 - 1:50am
Re: Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question

The squeezebox is an odd device in that the squeezebox itself is relatively dum and most of the intelligence resides in a program running on a host computer. This program normally runs on a PC or a Mac but it can be run on a NAS box or a router but you usually have to breakin to the NAS box or router (voiding the warranty) and mess about at a low level on the cut-down Linux OS to get the program installed and running. It then generally serves music without a problem but the web interface is slow. It has the significant advantage that you need no computers turned on except the NAS or router.

After Logitech bought slim devices (possibly before) there was a move away from the squeezebox/transporter approach towards having more intelligence in the device itself and less intelligence in the controller which is now often a remote with pictures on it. This is a better way to do thigns but one of the consequences is that the original way of doing things is fading away and Logitech do not seem to have much interest in supporting it fully. For example, the current version of the software has been unable to run on most NAS and router boxes for quite a while.

I think it is fair to say that the time for the original squeezebox has largely passed. The people that started the company with open source involvement have gone and it is now part of a much larger company targeting a much larger market segment with a significantly different set of products.

struts
struts's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 25 min ago
Joined: Feb 1 2007 - 12:02pm
Re: Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question

Baffled by several of the points in your post Andy. While it is clear that Logitech's focus is on the broader market, and I am disappointed that four years on the Transporter still hasn't seen any major hardware updates (mind you it still doesn't have much competition either), I don't see how this supports the assertions that the architecture is 'fading away' or that 'its time has passed'. Also, afaik Sean Adams is still very much engaged and it has always been my impression he was very much the majordomo, as well as the founder of Slim.

Although I don't own any Slim products I know plenty of people that do and all of them seem pretty happy. Performance of Squeezebox Server (formerly Squeeze Center) was admittedly pretty sluggish on the original ReadyNAS NV+ boxes but I understand it is much better on the new ReadyNAS NVX. As far as it being difficult to install on generic Linux-based NAS boxes, I would have thought that is just the nature of the beast.

So IMO the OP's proposed architecture makes perfect sense. The only thing I don't believe will work is omitting an Ethernet switch. Afaik 10BASE-T and 100BASE-TX networks can't be configured without a switch/hub in the middle.

andy19191
andy19191's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 25 2006 - 1:50am
Re: Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question

> Baffled by several of the points in your post Andy. While it is clear that Logitech's focus is on
> the broader market, and I am disappointed that four years on the Transporter still hasn't seen any
> major hardware updates (mind you it still doesn't have much competition either), I don't see how
> this supports the assertions that the architecture is 'fading away' or that 'its time has passed'.

This follows from the fading software support, the rapidly fading interest in squeezebox as can be seen on the forums, the age and organiation of the technology,.... If you go to the main page the squeezebox is not mentioned and has not been for a long time. The Transporter is but that is a rather different kettle of fish.

> Also, afaik Sean Adams is still very much engaged and it has always been my impression he was very
> much the majordomo, as well as the founder of Slim.

He sold his company years ago but stayed on at least for a transitionary period. No idea of the setup at the moment.

> Although I don't own any Slim products I know plenty of people that do and all of them seem pretty
> happy.

I bought one a few years ago despite it being overpriced at the time for what it was but it did what it said on the tin and had a lot more support and enthusiasm at the time. It is still fine and runs its old version of the software without a problem. I still don't think I can upgrade to a current version without having to compile and fix bunch of software myself.

> Performance of Squeezebox Server (formerly Squeeze Center) was admittedly pretty sluggish on the
> original ReadyNAS NV+ boxes but I understand it is much better on the new ReadyNAS NVX.

(and also formerly SlimServer).

ReadyNAS is just one of a large number of NAS boxes. It streams fixed point music without a problem from my NAS but cannot stream floating point due to lack of hardware support. It wasted a lot of my time getting the software to run in the first place due to a range of reasons and had I known this was going to happen I would not have bought the product. To be fair it runs fine on my Mac, Linux and Windows PCs.

> As far as it being difficult to install on generic Linux-based NAS boxes, I would have thought that
> is just the nature of the beast.

The squeezebox controlling software is written in a scripting language (Perl) and has a number of large and unecessary dependencies. This is not a problem on full blown PCs but it is on smaller computers. The replacement for the newer hardware is a more conventional and appropriate bit of software. I suspect this is not unrelated to the lack of support for the older software.

> So IMO the OP's proposed architecture makes perfect sense.

The Transporter has never made much sense except to people with large amounts of money. If the OP buys one I strongly suggest he use at least an Atom-type computer running a full blown operating system if he does not want to mess about due to dropping below the direct Logitech OS support.

> The only thing I don't believe will work is omitting an Ethernet switch. Afaik 10BASE-T and 100BASE-
> TX networks can't be configured without a switch/hub in the middle.

There is no problem going computer to computer wiht ehernet but you must use a crossed cable rather than the straight-through cable you would use to a switch.

bertdw
bertdw's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 5 days ago
Joined: Sep 18 2007 - 5:41am
Re: Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question

The Squeezebox is not mentioned? Huh???

http://www.logitechsqueezebox.com/products/overview.html

There's the Squeezebox Radio, Squeezebox Touch, Squeezebox Boom, Squeezebox Duet and the Transporter. As for software development, the latest version of Squeezebox Server was rolled out this week.

RGibran
RGibran's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 9 months ago
Joined: Oct 11 2005 - 5:50pm
Re: Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question

Sean left Logitech May of last year. LINK He still lurks the forum and will participate.

There are planty of folks there with NAS problems depending on which one your trying to get working. There are some versions of the server software that will not run on NAS. Generally, the software runs very well on an old throw down computer dedicated to serving music so there are many of us who wouldn't go near a NAS, because in the end we just want to play some freakin music! That said there are those who have been successful in getting a NAS running to meet their needs.

I'v read the sometime to be released "Touch" will have Slimserver built-in to the device.

RGibran
RGibran's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 9 months ago
Joined: Oct 11 2005 - 5:50pm
Re: Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question


Quote:
The Squeezebox is not mentioned? Huh???

I think he refers to the Squeezebox Classic, which to some of us old timers is the real Squeezebox.


Quote:
As for software development, the latest version of Squeezebox Server was rolled out this week.

Which is really getting old! A new version every damn month almost. Maybe they have too many developers?
Hell, they even have nightly releases! Enough already. They need to get it together. It would be ok if they were backwards compatible so to speak, but for many total reconfiguration is required with no notice of such prior to downloading.

struts
struts's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 25 min ago
Joined: Feb 1 2007 - 12:02pm
Re: Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question

Okay, I understand better where you're coming from now.

On the lack of mention of the SB itself I think that is just down to the fact it has been end-of-lifed as it is being superseded by the Touch. Nothing strange there. However if, as RG suggests, SlimServer runs in the Touch itself then I agree that does amount to a shift in architecture, maybe for the better?

Of three friends who are using a SB/TP with a NAS all three are using the Netgear (formerly Infrant) ReadyNAS. To the best of my knowledge that has always been the only 'officially' supported configuration and the others are 'known to work but complicated, proceed at own risk'. Are you saying that at some point Slim/Logitech claimed to support running SC on other NAS boxes? Even if it was never officially supported it's a shame to hear that 'known to work' configurations are now effectively being orphaned by lack of support in new releases of the software.

Didn't notice Sean had left, I agree that is worrying. It will be very interesting to see what direction things take without his hand on the helm. What is it they say? The product a vendor releases directly after the founder leaves is usually one of the best, it's the one after that where things take a dive.

At the end of the day I still don't see too much choice if you want a network streamer that is hi rez capable, and virtually none if you want one that can stream over wifi. I see the fact that the architecture supports PC-free operation as a positive, albeit with the caveat that if you want to keep life simple you really don't have a choice of NAS.

Anyway, thanks for the detailed response. Interesting stuff.

PS Didn't know you could still wire the latest incarnations of ethernet p2p (the last time I did that was with Coax) and I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that the 10BASE-T standard required a switch/hub. However, I would still have thought a switch was preferable, if nothing else to enable ripping new discs to the NAS without having to futz with disconnecting/reconnecting cables.

dumbo
dumbo's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 5 days ago
Joined: Sep 26 2009 - 6:59pm
Re: Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question

I ended up purchasing a Transporter last week and it is due to arrive sometime this week. I have a NAS device but it doesn't appear to have any capabilities built-in for installing or running a Squeezecenter App or plug-in. It does have UPNP capabilities which would lead me to believe that if enabled the Transporter may be able to find the storage on the network. Not sure yet how this will be useful in terms of Playlists and such but I plan on doing quite a bit of experimenting with the various methods to see which one works out the best. Worst case is that I will just run the Squeeze center on my home PC and leave it running during listening sessions.

I found this good 3 Part Youtube video of a guy who explains the setup of a Transporter on a NAS.

LINK

andy19191
andy19191's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 25 2006 - 1:50am
Re: Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question


Quote:
I have a NAS device but it doesn't appear to have any capabilities built-in for installing or running a Squeezecenter App or plug-in.


Apart from a few, you usually have to gain access by "hacking". This is not particularly difficult because most consumer NAS boxes are embarassingly insecure. Sometimes this appears to be in order to ease the update mechanism but often, I suspect, it is due to shear indifference/incompetence. Microsoft has a great deal to answer for in this respect in setting a very low standard that home consumers have come to accept.

You have not told us the brand of NAS box. A quick google or peruse of the slimdevices website should give you the current status for your device.


Quote:

It does have UPNP capabilities which would lead me to believe that if enabled the Transporter may be able to find the storage on the network.


The transporter will find your NAS box when you tell it the IP number. But the NAS box must be running an installed version of slimserver/squeezecentre/whatever-it-is-called-this-week server. The transporter runs its own old, proprietary, relatively dum, client software which requires a relatively intelligent server running on a remote device on the network. Unless things have changed recently (the spec on the Logitech website suggest that it has not) the transporter will not work like many recent home audio devices which run the intelligent-bit on the audio device and require nothing extra to be running on the NAS box.


Quote:

Worst case is that I will just run the Squeeze center on my home PC and leave it running during listening sessions.


This is by far the easiest place to start. When it is running and you have a bit more of an idea of what is going on then you can try installing slimserver on your NAS box, router or whatever that is connected to your home network.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question

It may already be clear from Andy's great answer, but the Transporter is not UPNP compliant.

It will work only with a device (NAS or computer) that is running its proprietary server software.

jazzfan
jazzfan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 8:55am
Re: Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question


Quote:
It may already be clear from Andy's great answer, but the Transporter is not UPNP compliant.

It will work only with a device (NAS or computer) that is running its proprietary server software.

Okay so we now have an almost correct answer.

The Transporter will only play music located on one's computer or NAS by connecting to the device via the proprietary server software BUT the Transporter can also play many different types of internet audio streams without having to be connected to a computer or NAS that is running its proprietary server software. It can connect to what is now known as "mysqueezebox.com" via one's network and internet connection and stream audio even when the computer or NAS running the proprietary server software is not turned on or available.

At present there is a lack of internet audio streams which stream at anything even approaching a reasonable "high fidelity" bit rate, with 192 kbps being about the highest one can find and even that meager bit rate is very hard to find. And because of this ridiculous lack of high quality audio streams I won't consider the ability to play internet audio streams a high end feature. That being said the Transporter can play "music" without being connected to a computer running it's server software. So if you're happy listening to 96kbps & 128kbps mp3's than you don't need to run the proprietary server software.

And while I'm posting I'd like to know what audio devices Andy was referring to when he wrote the following:


Quote:
The transporter will find your NAS box when you tell it the IP number. But the NAS box must be running an installed version of slimserver/squeezecentre/whatever-it-is-called-this-week server. The transporter runs its own old, proprietary, relatively dum, client software which requires a relatively intelligent server running on a remote device on the network. Unless things have changed recently (the spec on the Logitech website suggest that it has not) the transporter will not work like many recent home audio devices which run the intelligent-bit on the audio device and require nothing extra to be running on the NAS box.

And if these devices are able to do all the things that a Transporter or Squeezebox Touch can do, such stream to several devices at once, play high resolution (24bit/96kHz) files, organize one's music library or play one's existing iTune's library and, as is the case with the Touch, do so for under $400?

andy19191
andy19191's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 25 2006 - 1:50am
Re: Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question

> And if these devices are able to do all the things that a Transporter or Squeezebox Touch can do, such stream to
> several devices at once, play high resolution (24bit/96kHz) files, organize one's music library or play one's
> existing iTune's library and, as is the case with the Touch, do so for under $400?

Hmmm. I think we may have an audiophile and an engineer looking at these devices and seeing quite different things. All that is required is a computer connected to both the network and a DAC. This can be achieved in a wide range of ways with the cost depending on how you want to go about things.

The standard way of using the Transporter is by having a Windows/Mac PC switched on in order to run the controlling server software (I looked it up and it is called SqueezeCenter this week). Most people find this arrangement a bit awkward after a while and would rather use something that is silent, low power and available all the time. A few years ago the option I took was to run the SlimDevices server software on the cheap low power fanless NAS I used to store the music. It was a bit of a fiddle and I would not recommend doing this today but rather something like plugging a DAC into a low power general purpose computer (e.g. www.openplug.org for a $100 example) and using a modern portable phone with a screen as the controller. There are a wide range of variations depending on whether you include video, multi-channel, web, etc...

jazzfan
jazzfan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 8:55am
Re: Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question


Quote:
Hmmm. I think we may have an audiophile and an engineer looking at these devices and seeing quite different things. All that is required is a computer connected to both the network and a DAC. This can be achieved in a wide range of ways with the cost depending on how you want to go about things.

The standard way of using the Transporter is by having a Windows/Mac PC switched on in order to run the controlling server software (I looked it up and it is called SqueezeCenter this week). Most people find this arrangement a bit awkward after a while and would rather use something that is silent, low power and available all the time. A few years ago the option I took was to run the SlimDevices server software on the cheap low power fanless NAS I used to store the music. It was a bit of a fiddle and I would not recommend doing this today but rather something like plugging a DAC into a low power general purpose computer (e.g. www.openplug.org for a $100 example) and using a modern portable phone with a screen as the controller. There are a wide range of variations depending on whether you include video, multi-channel, web, etc...

Once again almost correct. I happen to be an audiophile and an engineer but I am also a music lover with a very large collection in many different formats (CDs, LPs and flac files). What you are describing (phone->computer->DAC->stereo) tells me nothing about how one goes about finding and then selecting a given piece of music to play. At present my music library being managed by Squeezebox Server (the correct name for SqueezeCenter this week) has over 8,000 album with over 120,000 songs. Because Squeezebox server is running on a computer I am able to search for and find any given piece of music in less than a minute.

Now maybe someone with a smaller music collection or someone who is less concerned with what they're listening to would be happy with a pieced together system with limited music library management abilities but I much prefer using a well supported system with good music library management abilities. In any event, I can't help thinking that you left out the music management software in the system you outlined above so that in reality the system would look more like this: phone->MUSIC MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE/computer->DAC->stereo. The music management software can be any one of a number currently available choices (iTunes, foobar, winamp, etc.) but once you have to start using this software you've essentially created a system which is not that much different from the Squeezebox model other than losing the ability to server multiple music players. At present I have 4 Squeezebox devices located throughout my home and they all run off of one computer and they all have access to the music library I described above.

Please understand that I am not trying to pick a fight rather I am just trying to clear up some misconceptions so that we can be sure that we are comparing apples to apples and not apples to oranges, oranges which on closer inspection turn out to be apples.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question


Quote:

Quote:
It may already be clear from Andy's great answer, but the Transporter is not UPNP compliant.

It will work only with a device (NAS or computer) that is running its proprietary server software.

Okay so we now have an almost correct answer.

The Transporter will only play music located on one's computer or NAS by connecting to the device via the proprietary server software BUT the Transporter can also play many different types of internet audio streams without having to be connected to a computer or NAS that is running its proprietary server software.

Good clarification. The Logitech devices will indeed play Internet streams directly.

With respect to large libraries, I have a friend that uses Logitech devises to play a large collection of CDs off of a NAS. While not lightening quick, the Squeezebox and Transporter both respond rapidly.

dumbo
dumbo's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 5 days ago
Joined: Sep 26 2009 - 6:59pm
Re: Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question

I am using a Lacie Network Space 2 NAS device which has a rather simple feature set in terms of on board intelligence. I will do some more poking around to see if it's listed on their site but based on what options are available within the Web based management screen I'm not confident that it can accept any type of installable plug-ins for the Squeezecenter. It does have an option to run an i-Tunes server though.

For some reason I thought the Transporter had a USB Input but it seems that it doesn't. This is a shame because it would open the door for many other configuration options now that we have fairly large capacity memory sticks available on the market to play with.

One technology on the market that does look promising is USB over Ethernet. These devices allow you to assign a USB stick an IP Address which could then be accessed via it's assigned IP. My thought is that you could have a 100gb memory stick attached to the Hub controller which you could then point the Squeeze center software to as you would a NAS. One benefit would be that this device could be in your listening room without issue since it doesn't have any noisy fans and such associated with it. Another plus would be that you would be accessing the storage over a very fast flash based media device.

I have found a few devices online that now support USB 2.0 Highspeed which should be more then sufficient matted to a 100mb Ethernet connection.

I'm not sure what the USB-Ethernet conversion process would do in terms of introducing jitter to the stream but the devices are cheap enough to warrant a listening test or two.

Here is a link to one such device I found: LINK

dumbo
dumbo's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 5 days ago
Joined: Sep 26 2009 - 6:59pm
Re: Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question

I finally received my Transporter earlier this week and have been exploring it's many capabilities over the last few days. I must say that I am throughly impressed with how it sounds as a transport and primary music source. My previous primary sources were a Rotel RCD1072 and Wadia i-Transport feeding my BEL Canto DAC3 via their SPDif outputs.

Both of these devices sounded very good as transports, each with their own minor differences. The CD Player always seemed to sound a bit smoother and layed back with better bass response. The Wadia/i-Pod combo was brighter with less bottom end. My initial impression of the Logitech feeding my BEL Canto is that the Transporter has even more bottom end then my CD player does and it adds a bit more detail and life to the music but not to the extent of being on the bright side like the Wadia combo was.

So far I am going to have to give the node to the Logitech over the other two. I plan on doing some additional testing using a Lossless file (.wav) ripped from the same CD that I will place in my CD Player for comparison. I'll use this .WAV file as the source for both the Wadia/i-Pod combo and the Logitech and see what other differences I can hear.

The thing that I find most impressive about the Transporter is that it seems to sound better even though I am feeding music to it over a Wireless link. I had some reservations about hooking it up using this method but I think I have sufficient network bandwidth and NAS disk speed to maintain good playback performance.

I ended up just installing the Squeezbox Server software on my home PC which is in another room and then put my media files on the NAS device. Granted using this method of hookup isn't the most efficient path for the signal to travel before feeding the Logtitech but it seems OK so far.

I guess the ideal configuration would be to use a NAS device that is capable of running the Squeezebox software on it's own that way I am not using my PC as a pass through device to access the music files.

I will be testing out streaming some High-Res 24/96 Flac files that I downloaded from HDTracks to see if the Wireless link chokes but my hope is that it will be fine as I really don't want to have to run any additional CAT5 cabling to remedy the issue.

All in all the convenience of the Logitech setup is unbeatable, especially combined with the DUET Remote that I got along with the Transporter. The only thing I am not looking forward to is all the hours I will need to spend looking at DBPower Amp while CD Ripping the remainder of my collection.

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 5 days ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question

Have you tried Transporter as a DAC , analog outs ?
Have you compared that to the BelCanto?

RGibran
RGibran's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 9 months ago
Joined: Oct 11 2005 - 5:50pm
Re: Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question

Balanced out if possible, which many feel produces the best sound quality.

That aside, thanks for the great write up. Glad to hear your setup is streaming beautiful music without any hiccups.

Are you streaming flac. files? If so I wouldn't anticipate any problems with Hi-Res but one never knows.

The ideal setup is one that works consistently.

Don't forget the backup!

dumbo
dumbo's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 5 days ago
Joined: Sep 26 2009 - 6:59pm
Re: Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question

I haven't tried the Transporter's DAC as of yet and will probably do so at some point in the future. Since I haven't tried it yet I can't say for sure if it will sound any better then the Bel Canto does but I will be pleasantly surprised (and kind of pissed at the same time) if it does.

I plan on picking up an AES/EBU Poiema cable from Ridge Street Audio to connect the Transporter to the BC sometime this week so I expect the performance to increase even more afterward.

Last night I lost my "High-Res 24/96 audio" virginity when I was able to hear for the first time what all the hype is about with music in this format. All I can say is "Holy Dog Shit Bat Man!!!!"

It should be against the law for ALL music to not come in this format. The Transporter had no issues at all streaming these large .flac files so I think I'm good to go.

As a side note, if you haven't heard the Albert King with Stevie Ray Vaughan "In Session" Album available on HDTracks in 24/96 format it's a definite keeper. This along with the George Wild Child Butler "Sho Nuff" Album was like an Audiophile's version of Crack Cocaine.

I think I'm hooked forever....

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question


Quote:
It should be against the law for ALL music to not come in this format.



Quote:
The Transporter had no issues at all streaming these large .flac files so I think I'm good to go.


Good to hear. Some have had problems with various types of flac files and the Squeezebox products.

jazzfan
jazzfan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 8:55am
Re: Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question

I'm glad to read that you're enjoying your new Transporter. Now for the bad news: if you are only planning using the Transporter as a digital source then I suggest that you give the Touch a listen. At $300, which is quite a bit less than the Transporter's $2000 list price, the Touch also handles 24bit/96kHz files and has a nice touch screen. Use the extra $1,700 to buy lots of hi-rez files from HDTracks!

struts
struts's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 25 min ago
Joined: Feb 1 2007 - 12:02pm
Re: Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question

Now for the even worse news. Unlike the TP the Touch does offer USB, so you could connect your LaCie drive directly...

jazzfan
jazzfan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 2 weeks ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 8:55am
Re: Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question


Quote:
Now for the even worse news. Unlike the TP the Touch does offer USB, so you could connect your LaCie drive directly...

True but....

If one reads the "Squeezebox Touch" section on the Squeezebox forums (Touch Forum) the Touch's built-in Squeezebox Server (Tiny SC) appears to have quite a bit of problems associated with it. However from what I can gather these "problems" seem to have more to do with the fact that, while Tiny SC is a nice feature, it is nowhere near as powerful or flexible as the full version of Squeezebox Server running on a computer or NAS device. Nonetheless it's still a very nifty feature.

dumbo
dumbo's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 5 days ago
Joined: Sep 26 2009 - 6:59pm
Re: Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question

I wonder if a review of the Touch is in the pipeline from Stereophile. I would be curious to see how it's numbers stack up against the Transporters. Seeing test info on the Touches ability to lock on to Wireless signals, channel separation, S/N Ratio's, Jitter figures etc would be the real deciding factors on weather it's a better alternative or not.

I'm still happy with my purchase as I like all the hookup options the Transporter offers even if I'm not using them all at this point. The big selling point for me was the AES/EBU connectivity and other Balanced connection options it has as my DAC is much happier using them

struts
struts's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 25 min ago
Joined: Feb 1 2007 - 12:02pm
Re: Logitech Transporter/Squeezebox ..etc Question

I am also looking forward to the 'phile review which I am sure must be in the works. JA was on top of the computer audio thang from the get-go, I can't see him missing a product this significant!

Now had mine for almost two months. Some initial impressions here.

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading