Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Squeezebox classic and iPod touch?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Squeezebox classic and iPod touch?

post #1 of 24
6/16/09 at 2:07pm
Thread Starter 
Just wanted some feedback from anyone using this combo. Does your Touch or iPhone stay connected pretty well or are you having to re-enter IP info and re-connect. Any issues with the network and internet radio?

If there are any Sonos users that can chime in on why it would be worth 2x+ the cost I'm listening
Reply
post #2 of 24
6/16/09 at 2:59pm
I have Squeezebox and an iPod Touch, however I am not sure what your question is?

Are you referring to using the Touch to control the Squeezebox via an app like iPeng iPeng Application | Penguin Loves Music ? If so it is excellent! Not sure what you mean by staying connected though, it is used as a controller only it currently does not play back the music.

Note iPeng also has a SC plugin which is just a SC skin to format it better for viewing on the iphone, while this is nice I do not recommend it because it is slow. Of so very slow, the iPod app works so much better and is very responsive.

Sonos I have never used it because I prefer the client/server architecture of the Squeezebox better and like the opensource aspect of the Squeezebox.
Reply
post #3 of 24
6/16/09 at 4:21pm
Sonos has the better remote, and P160 has 55W amp, but Squeezebox has digital out which means you can upgrade analogue section later on. Also has custom browse which means can use your own library filters, this is so much better if you have a large collection.

Squeezeboxes are much cheaper, so if you want multi-room it ends up much less, so you could buy a nice DAC for your main room. But Sonos has benefit it requires no host computer, I believe it just connects to any storage device on your LAN. Squeezebox needs a PC/Mac/NAS with Slimserver.

I've got two Squeezeboxes, cable version. I would recommend building a low powered Shuttle PC with a single high capacity "green" HD.

Have Sonos finally supported replaygain in mp3, Ogg & flac?
Reply
post #4 of 24
6/16/09 at 4:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by iriverdude View Post
Sonos has the better remote
Well considering you can buy an 8gb ipod touch cheaper than a sonos remote, and use the touch as a remote for the squeezebox. I am not sure Sonos can be declared the "better remote" anymore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iriverdude View Post
Squeezebox needs a PC/Mac/NAS with Slimserver.
You forgot linux as an option, the server software will run on PC/MAC/Linux and some NAS devices.
Reply
post #5 of 24
6/16/09 at 5:24pm
Thread Starter 
Thanks for the input. Yes I am asking about using the Touch as the remote. I was reading some complaints on amazon about the Squeezebox Duet remote losing connection with the system and wanted to see if this was a trend with folks using the Touch as a remote. The iPeng app was the one I was looking at as well.

This just seems like an easier way to navigate internet radio, playlists, etc. vs. the classic Squeezebox remote.

I'm open to considering the Sonos but apart from the remote there should be something to justify the extra cost, even for a single room set up.
Reply
post #6 of 24
6/16/09 at 5:31pm
Well like I have said I have not used the Sonos, but from the many reviews I have read the Sonos appears to be a more user friendly, easy to setup, less hassle device.
Course the typical Head-Fi user tends to have a bit more tech know-how so I do not see that as much of a bonus for that user. Also note that the easier something is to get going usually means the less it can be customized.
Reply
post #7 of 24
6/16/09 at 6:26pm
Quote:
Well considering you can buy an 8gb ipod touch cheaper than a sonos remote, and use the touch as a remote for the squeezebox. I am not sure Sonos can be declared the "better remote" anymore.
Physically the Sonos remote is far superior to the itouch as you have dedicated buttons. A all-touchscreen remote is a pain. You also need IR signal from remote to control your amps volume. Anyway the Classic doesn't come with a touch screen. Also itouch for SB control is a bit slow.

I do like the Squeezebox, I just wish Slim/Logitech made a server with CPU/slimserver capability. I don't rate slimserver on NAS's that highly, a bit slow. Also a bit annoying to have a computer on everytime (or if you're rebooting playback is interrupted)
Reply
post #8 of 24
6/16/09 at 8:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by iriverdude View Post
Physically the Sonos remote is far superior to the itouch as you have dedicated buttons. A all-touchscreen remote is a pain. You also need IR signal from remote to control your amps volume. Anyway the Classic doesn't come with a touch screen. Also itouch for SB control is a bit slow.

I do like the Squeezebox, I just wish Slim/Logitech made a server with CPU/slimserver capability. I don't rate slimserver on NAS's that highly, a bit slow. Also a bit annoying to have a computer on everytime (or if you're rebooting playback is interrupted)
well do not tell apple but the vol hardware buttons do work . Outside of vol i do not agree needing anymore hard buttons for a music player. As for needing IR, you do not really need IR because you can have the Squeezebox control your amp via IR emitters or serial with a plugin.

EDIT: I also do NOT rate silmserver high on a NAS device, simply not enough power in most NAS devices. However remember a NAS is just a computer so saying it is annoying to have a computer on, but not annoying to have a NAS on is kinda odd. You can make a powerful enough, quiet and energy efficient machine to be your slimserver. While it does need more than most NAS devices it does NOT need to be a monster machine.
Reply
post #9 of 24
6/16/09 at 8:21pm
I've tried the plugin, it doesn't act like it should. A bit stuttery. Great idea, but plugin needs to offer more customisation.

Quote:
Outside of vol i do not agree needing anymore hard buttons for a music player
You've never used a decent remote then, I've bought touchscreens and gone back to hard button & LCD type.

On something so small (itouch) hard buttons are a must. Once you use a 5"+ touchscreen you can get rid of most hard buttons, but I'd still want dedicated hard buttons for volume and transport controls.
Reply
post #10 of 24
6/16/09 at 8:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by iriverdude View Post
I've tried the plugin, it doesn't act like it should. A bit stuttery. Great idea, but plugin needs to offer more customisation.



You've never used a decent remote then, I've bought touchscreens and gone back to hard button & LCD type.

On something so small (itouch) hard buttons are a must. Once you use a 5"+ touchscreen you can get rid of most hard buttons, but I'd still want dedicated hard buttons for volume and transport controls.
Actually for most purposes I agree the a remote should have LOTS of hard buttons, in fact I feel that a remotes touch screen should only be for secondary tasks. But this is in regards to a universal remote or home theatre remote that is controlling a display device. The touch remote is just for controlling MUSIC, in which case looking down at the remote is not really a problem. In fact I am usually looking down anyway to look at the album art or read the artist/album bio, etc. As for volume control again when listening to music I rarely touch the volume once I set it, again different use case than watching TV where I constantly have to adjust the volume.

I use to own a pronto, HATED THAT REMOTE. Worse idea ever, hard buttons are a requirement for home theatre.
Reply
post #11 of 24
6/17/09 at 5:06pm
Thread Starter 
Ok, I think I'm going to order the squeezebox. Now for the expensive part... the dac. I've been happy with my Pico for so long I havn't had any desire to look but now I'll need more options than a portable dac. Something that I can run a coax from my BD player to for latenight movies/headphone but also have the squeezebox connected to and analog out to my receiver. The only question left is Lavry or Benchmark.
Reply
post #12 of 24
6/17/09 at 5:20pm
Quote:
EDIT: I also do NOT rate silmserver high on a NAS device, simply not enough power in most NAS devices. However remember a NAS is just a computer so saying it is annoying to have a computer on, but not annoying to have a NAS on is kinda odd. You can make a powerful enough, quiet and energy efficient machine to be your slimserver. While it does need more than most NAS devices it does NOT need to be a monster machine.
Most computers will use more far power than a NAS. Also with TS-1x9 I'd like you to build a quieter computer for less- the 1x9 no fans at all. Also it's nice not relying on a computer, for example I could be updating, or cleaning, adding or removing bits to the PC and the Squeezebox will still be playing in the background. As for speed, yes when scanning and slower when using the menu, and especially the web interface, but when it's playing it's fine. Around 15% CPU usage (TS-209 II)

NAS has benefit of being seperate so if my PC is infected and proceeds to corrupt my data, the NAS hopefully won't, unless the virus looks at network shares. You could write protect your NAS music drive. Although I understand your reason for not liking a NAS, I also have a HTPC with slim server installed- so both NAS and HTPC has slim server, so if I lose one I revert to the other. I wish SB could choose default server, if it's unavailable it'll switch to the other one.

Qnap have released NAS's with 1.2ghz CPU and 512MB, this'll be plenty.
Reply
post #13 of 24
6/17/09 at 5:39pm
A NAS is just a dedicated computer do not try to pretend it is anything else more special. You most certainly can build a low-power quiet computer that is free of all the problems you seem to associate with a PC. If you think a NAS will not corrupt your files think again.

I just did a quick pricing of the TS-209 on google looks to be about $300 without drives. Yes I could EASILY build a fanless computer without drives for that price that is even faster.
Newegg.com - AMD Athlon X2 4850e 2.5GHz 2 x 512KB L2 Cache Socket AM2 45W Dual-Core Processor - Processors - Desktops $60
Newegg.com - GIGABYTE GA-MA790GP-UD4H AM2+/AM2 AMD 790GX HDMI ATX AMD Motherboard - AMD Motherboards $120
Newegg.com - CORSAIR XMS2 1GB (2 x 512MB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 675 (PC2 5400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model TWIN2X1024-5400C4 - Desktop Memory $15
Newegg.com - APEVIA Black SECC Steel / Aluminum X-MASTER-BK/500 ATX Media Center / HTPC Case - HTPC / Media Center Cases $70

Now then that was just a quick newegg search for parts and it comes to $265. Leaving you with some leftover for a quiet CPU cooler. Note that is only a 45W CPU so it will not need a whole lot of cooling. Yes I know the PSU has a fan, but generally those are not too noisy. Besides isn't the point of the Squeezebox to put the server hardware in the basement/closest/etec where you will not hear it?
Reply
post #14 of 24
6/17/09 at 5:44pm
A X2 CPU uses far more power than a NAS. And that case is massive. I can place two 209's in where a desktop case will be. What about passive CPU, fanless PSU?

If you want to build a computer for slimserver, I'd look at mini ITX build or a Shuttle.

Quote:
quiet CPU coole
Nope have to go passive, with a X2 means a tower such as Ninja, and talking a tower case. I have a X2 CPU passive.

Quote:
anything else more special.
oh I forgot RAID controllers on NAS's aren't software based, like those in computers. So please factor in a hardware RAID controller :-D Not that I use RAID..
Reply
post #15 of 24
6/17/09 at 5:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by iriverdude View Post
A X2 CPU uses far more power than a NAS. And that case is massive. I can place two 209's in where a desktop case will be. What about passive CPU, fanless PSU?

If you want to build a computer for slimserver, I'd look at mini ITX build or a Shuttle.



Nope have to go passive, with a X2 means a tower such as Ninja, and talking a tower case. I have a X2 CPU passive.
A 45W X2 is not the same as all X2 chips! Keep that in mind. Using proper power save features that CPU will not be using 45W, that 45W is it max power draw. You could underclock and undervolt it for even lower power and heat.

You could build an Atom machine (probably not a bad idea to research) for much less I just did not look into that. Also you could get a mini itx that would be smaller and less power and cheaper. But why the emphassis on small and quiet? I understand not wanting a behemoth or noisy machine but even the parts I put together above (which are not ideal of course just used for pricing) it would not be a large machine nor a loud one. Remember hard drives are NOT quiet and I am pretty sure even the quiet ones will be louder than any decent PSU fan. Loudest part of my gaming machine which has several fans are the harddrives.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Computer Audio
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Computer Audio › Squeezebox classic and iPod touch?