Skip to main content

Topic: Slim Devices Transporter (Read 8364 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • WSLam
  • [*]
Slim Devices Transporter
Finally took delivery of the Transporter yesterday. The black one is mine, the silver one is my bro-in-law's.
Here are some photos. Enjoy















So far, I have almost nothing but praise for the Transporter. What stole my attention was the Analog Out from the Transporter. Truly remarkable, especially given this is SD's first attempt at the audiophile market. I think they have suceeded.

Cheers, ws

Transporter -> EMM Labs DCC2 SE -> Acoustic Reality eAR1001 -> Magico Mini

  • Hamman
  • [*][*]
Slim Devices Transporter
Reply #1
Great!
I've always been of the opinion that this forum needs more images
What made you choose the transporter over the standard Squeezebox?

  • CSMR
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Slim Devices Transporter
Reply #2
Looks good!

  • ChangFest
  • [*][*][*][*]
Slim Devices Transporter
Reply #3
Frick! I don't care how good it sounds, that thing LOOKS good.

  • HotshotGG
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Slim Devices Transporter
Reply #4
Quote
Finally took delivery of the Transporter yesterday. The black one is mine, the silver one is my bro-in-law's.
Here are some photos. Enjoy


sweet. I can't imagine how much that must have cost, but it certaintly is some series hardware. Here is something that always baffles me, why don't hardware decoders support Wavpack? An integerized decoder exists yes?
  • Last Edit: 26 September, 2006, 12:05:57 PM by HotshotGG
budding I.T professional

  • WSLam
  • [*]
Slim Devices Transporter
Reply #5
Great!
I've always been of the opinion that this forum needs more images
What made you choose the transporter over the standard Squeezebox?


What makes you think I don't have a SqueezeBox?
I started with SB2, have 2 SB3, now a Transporter! =)

  • WSLam
  • [*]
Slim Devices Transporter
Reply #6
I just took the cover off the Transporter and took some photos. Here you go!









Apparently this AKM chip is not even used in the current firmware! Untapped power for future upgrade!


Enjoy! ws
  • Last Edit: 26 September, 2006, 01:30:17 PM by WSLam

  • WSLam
  • [*]
Slim Devices Transporter
Reply #7
I just put up a full gallery of photos of the Transporter, Inside Out! Thanks to Sean for pointing out to me what is what. You can access the full gallery here:

http://photos.lam.ws/gallery/1930618

  • cliveb
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Slim Devices Transporter
Reply #8
What made you choose the transporter over the standard Squeezebox?

If you read WSLam's posts over on the Slim Devices forum, you'll discover that he must be pretty rich (eg. former owner of a Linn CD12 - a $12k CD player), so the price of the Transporter ($2k) was probably pocket money for him.

But in any case, the Transporter does have some very interesting capabilities over & above the Squeezebox, quite apart from the expected better sound quality. I'm not rich, but am seriously considering a Transporter to replace my Squeezebox. I just need to pluck up the courage to broach the subject with my wife....

Slim Devices Transporter
Reply #9
But in any case, the Transporter does have some very interesting capabilities over & above the Squeezebox, quite apart from the expected better sound quality. I'm not rich, but am seriously considering a Transporter to replace my Squeezebox. I just need to pluck up the courage to broach the subject with my wife....

Well, I've bit the bullet and bought one after hearing a few reviews of the sound quality (I've been extremely pleased with my Squeezox 2). The wierd thing is that in the end (for me) it works out very cheaply, in fact amazingly cheaply (if not free) for a top end, highly-configurable and very flexible audiophile device.

Consider:

1) Comes with free Squeezebox 3 (which I will probably use in the kitchen or bedroom, possibly synchronised with the Transporter sometimes and maybe as my alarm clock too). BTW. This offer is still open on the SlimDevices web site if not elsewhere.
2) Has great internal DAC (so I can sell my existing Benchmark Dac1)
3) Has own internal pre-amp (so I can sell my existing pre-amp)

I can run other devices through it's DAC too.

I love the displays. The configuration possibilities for these seem endless too (two displays with two lines each with left and right configuration options) . I could do without VU meters and will be replacing them with a scrolling output from my Flac files Comment tag (all my files have the Comment tag populated with Bio's and Album Reviews), a progress bar, track number, artist, album, track and still have space left for graphic equalisers (should I want to use them).

I am just staggered by this device. It's very hard to believe it is the price it is. If a normal hi-end audio company had produced it (like NAIM for instance) it would be 10 or 20 times the price. The fact that a small open-source based company has produced a device to such exacting standards is pretty unbelievable.

I guess the only two things I can think of that would improve it are:

1) A display capable of showing album art
2) No buttons or knobs (seems pointless when you have a remote)

MC
  • Last Edit: 10 October, 2006, 02:36:20 PM by ModelCitizen

  • CSMR
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Slim Devices Transporter
Reply #10
How do you naviage through your music collection on this player (or the squeezebox)?

Slim Devices Transporter
Reply #11
How do you navigate through your music collection on this player (or the squeezebox)?

I use the remote control. Many others use the web browser interface (which then enables them to access their home music collection over the Internet). I've also used the web browser on my iPaq (there are various skins for the web browser, i.e plain, flashy, handheld, Nokia 770, touch screen etc). This is quite cool for a while if you have a wireless iPaq (or handheld) but I soon switched back to the remote.
Many multi-remotes (like the Harmony) have mapping for the Squeezebox remote.
There are other option too including an app called Moose. All can be useful, in one way or another.

The Transporter and the SB1/2/3 are all very similar. The main distinction being the fact that the Slimdevices Transporter is billed as an audiophile device and a lot of attention has been paid to maximising the exact reproduction of the music (yup, you would not choose to use MP3's with this device... really only lossless files are appropriate).
MC
  • Last Edit: 10 October, 2006, 02:37:01 PM by ModelCitizen

Slim Devices Transporter
Reply #12
How do you naviage through your music collection on this player (or the squeezebox)?

Hmm.. I might have misunderstood you.
Otherwise by album name, track name, genre, song name, year etc etc and you can search for anything.

One of those ought to be the right answer I hope.
MC

  • CSMR
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Slim Devices Transporter
Reply #13
Thanks. I suppose one could get used to browsing with just the current composer or work displayed on the screen.

Slim Devices Transporter
Reply #14
Thanks. I suppose one could get used to browsing with just the current composer or work displayed on the screen.

On the Transporter here are two diplays, each split into at least four segments. You can program almost whatever you want to see into each segment. e.g. one segment can be used for displaying Track No - Artist - Album - Title, another comment, another currently browsing, etc etc. I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at but there is any need to have to get used to "browsing with just the current composer or work displayed on the screen.".
MC
  • Last Edit: 10 October, 2006, 02:40:29 PM by ModelCitizen

  • cliveb
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Slim Devices Transporter
Reply #15
The wierd thing is that in the end (for me) it works out very cheaply, in fact amazingly cheaply (if not free) for a top end, highly-configurable and very flexible audiophile device.

Consider:

1) Comes with free Squeezebox 3 (which I will probably use in the kitchen or bedroom, possibly synchronised with the Transporter sometimes and maybe as my alarm clock too). BTW. This offer is still open on the SlimDevices web site if not elsewhere.
2) Has great internal DAC (so I can sell my existing Benchmark Dac1)
3) Has own internal pre-amp (so I can sell my existing pre-amp)

All very true, but unfortunately I've already been through that phase. When the SB2 arrived and I tried it direct into my active speakers, the CD player and preamp became redundant, and they went up on eBay ages ago. So buying the SB2 netted me a profit, but unfortunately that money just got absorbed into the family coffers. So if I want a Transporter, I need to persuade my wife that it's 1300 quid worth spending (even though selling the CD player and preamp netted us 1500 quid to start with!)

Re. the other comments about how you browse your music on the Transporter/Squeezebox:

I have to say that the one thing I miss from the days of using CDs was the method of selecting the next music to listen to. I used to just walk up to a wall-mounted rack full of CDs and scan them almost at random. Using a Squeezebox, you are pretty much forced into a mode whereby you have to think about what you'd like to hear and then go get it. The old "serendipitous" browsing mode is just not available. (I know there are random play options in SlimServer, but I've never been a big fan of that way of listening).

Slim Devices Transporter
Reply #16
Just tell the wife you got a new box for the SB2 and it cost you a tenner!

And there seems that there may be a (slim) chance that a graphical remote will show up for Squeezebox/Transporter soon: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.p...8499&page=2, if that helps.
Look for the post from Sean Adams, SlimDevices CEO.
MC
  • Last Edit: 11 October, 2006, 05:16:56 PM by ModelCitizen

  • cliveb
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Slim Devices Transporter
Reply #17
Just tell the wife you got a new box for the SB2 and it cost you a tenner!

Ha - no chance! We have a joint bank account and a joint credit card, and she's the one who inspects our statements like a hawk!

And there seems that there may be a (slim) chance that a graphical remote will show up for Squeezebox/Transporter soon: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.p...8499&page=2, if that helps.

Yeh, I've seen that thread, but I'm not really interested in graphical remotes that talk to the SlimServer web interface. That interface is frankly far too slow for music browsing, and it still doesn't replicate the "random scan" paradigm you get with a rack full of CDs.

Slim Devices Transporter
Reply #18
Yeh, I've seen that thread, but I'm not really interested in graphical remotes that talk to the SlimServer web interface. That interface is frankly far too slow for music browsing, and it still doesn't replicate the "random scan" paradigm you get with a rack full of CDs.


Up until recently I ran SlimServer on a Windows Home 192k RAM, 500mhz PII machine with no problems. The web interface was not fast, but the remote was fine (I rarely use the web interface so I didn't mind).
However, the lastest version (6.5.1) did not work well so I've dumped that machine and now use my main desktop computer, a 1.5ghz, 1mb RAM PIV. The SlimServer web interface is very fast on this machine.

I'm trying to imagine what interface to digital media might suit you, but am failing. Perhaps use CDs for randon scanning and something like the Squeezebox to actually play the music!  :-)

MC

  • cliveb
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Developer
Slim Devices Transporter
Reply #19
Up until recently I ran SlimServer on a Windows Home 192k RAM, 500mhz PII machine with no problems. The web interface was not fast, but the remote was fine (I rarely use the web interface so I didn't mind).

My main Slimserver is version 6.0.2 (yes, that old!) running on a dedicated 500MHz/256MB FreeBSD box. The web interface is OK, but not fast. The remote control response is actually pretty good, especially since I switched the database from SQLite to MySQL.

I've also been experimenting with Slimserver 6.5.0 on a 533MHz/512MB mini-ITX box running Win2000 Pro (the general household file/email server). I'd say that the web interface is slightly faster than the FreeBSD box, but that's probably because a lot of the pointless little graphics have been removed. The plan is to combine everything onto the mini-ITX, for the sake of my electricity bill!

However, the lastest version (6.5.1) did not work well so I've dumped that machine and now use my main desktop computer, a 1.5ghz, 1mb RAM PIV. The SlimServer web interface is very fast on this machine.

I'm sure it is, but I'd rather not leave a big power-hungry machine running 24/7.

I'm trying to imagine what interface to digital media might suit you, but am failing. Perhaps use CDs for randon scanning and something like the Squeezebox to actually play the music!  :-)
The CDs are now archived and out of the lounge. Some wag suggested having a large photograph of the CD rack mounted on the wall! But the bottom line is that the "random scan" method of browsing just doesn't seem to work without the physical objects present. I'm being philosophical about this - my listening habits will have to go through a bit of BPR.