[Napalm]

Not sure why it is necessary to attack one manufacturer (Logitech)[...]

It's not the manufacturer that was attacked, it was the particular approach of having a dumb box that's controlled by software running on the PC's processor.

Anyone remembers the "win-modems" and "win-printers"? When Intel was peddling the idea that all peripherals should be just I/O ports, and their "mighty" Pentium IV should do all the processing? It didn't turn out well, did it?

Coming back to Logitech as an example. If you know what an "universal remote" is... you'll know that most of them are able to "learn" codes from an existing original remote. This is normally done by pressing a sequence like "learn" + "function button" on the universal one, pointing the original remote to it, pressing the original button, and voila the universal remote now knows what to do when you press the "play" button. All in all you need the two remotes and pressing a grand total of 3 or 4 buttons.

Let's see Logitech's approach on Harmony One: it doesn't work as expected. It's too dumb to learn by itself. You actually need to have the Harmony connected via USB to a PC, and running the Logitech supplied software, that also needs to connect by internet to your account at Logitech in order to do anything. Then you'll have to go deep down into some confusing menus in order to get to the "learn" function.

"No big deal" would you say? How would this work if I want to go to my local audio dealer to learn "volume up" and "volume down" from an original BR-2 remote? I should take a laptop with me and ask him for an Internet connection, right? I guess he'll show me the door in no time...... no he wouldn't do that as he's actually a nice guy....

Nap. 

[Napalm]

How would you characterize the Squeezebox family then? 

Dunno, I don't have one, but I promise to look through the manuals and let you know of my findings.

Nap. 

[whanafi]

It's not the manufacturer that was attacked, it was the particular approach of having a dumb box that's controlled by software running on the PC's processor.

Anyone remembers the "win-modems" and "win-printers"? When Intel was peddling the idea that all peripherals should be just I/O ports, and their "mighty" Pentium IV should do all the processing? It didn't turn out well, did it?

Coming back to Logitech as an example. If you know what an "universal remote" is... you'll know that most of them are able to "learn" codes from an existing original remote. This is normally done by pressing a sequence like "learn" + "function button" on the universal one, pointing the original remote to it, pressing the original button, and voila the universal remote now knows what to do when you press the "play" button. All in all you need the two remotes and pressing a grand total of 3 or 4 buttons.

Let's see Logitech's approach on Harmony One: it doesn't work as expected. It's too dumb to learn by itself. You actually need to have the Harmony connected via USB to a PC, and running the Logitech supplied software, that also needs to connect by internet to your account at Logitech in order to do anything. Then you'll have to go deep down into some confusing menus in order to get to the "learn" function.

"No big deal" would you say? How would this work if I want to go to my local audio dealer to learn "volume up" and "volume down" from an original BR-2 remote? I should take a laptop with me and ask him for an Internet connection, right? I guess he'll show me the door in no time...... no he wouldn't do that as he's actually a nice guy....

Nap. 

Have to disagree with you here. 

I think the Harmony approach is brilliant.  You are comparing it to a learning remote, instead of what it is, a data base driven device.  I have had learning remotes, and it is a pain to teach all the commands.  That was the whole point of the approach to creating a master data base so that people don't have to enter codes. 

When I bought the BP26, I was able to add it to the setup by just selecting the device - no need to go to the dealer.  Harmony will work with any manufacturer you point them to.

As for the Squeezebox, you have misunderstood the setup.  It is actually the opposite of what you are describing.  The Winmodem approach would tightly bind the components, and I agree that approach is terrible. 

Instead, the server and player are loosely coupled via Ethernet, without any dependencies.  Everything is open source and open standard, unlike iTunes and the Mac.  The player is not controlled by the PC, it is a client being served.  Independent and running its own logic board and CPU.

I can and do run the server on a low-power, low noise, Atom CPU box running the VORTEXBOX distro which uses Red Hat LINUX and Squeezebox Server with a PHP admin UI.  There is no monitor, no mouse, no keyboard, just runs headless.  Control is via a web browser, the Squeezebox player remote, or iPeng on an iPod Touch.

Nothing touches the music until the file is presented to the DAC.  No USB, no jitter, no sound card drivers, no sound card, period.  And the hard disk stays where it belongs, in a NAS in a rack.

[Napalm]

[...]
I think the Harmony approach is brilliant.  You are comparing it to a learning remote, instead of what it is, a data base driven device.  I have had learning remotes, and it is a pain to teach all the commands.  That was the whole point of the approach to creating a master data base so that people don't have to enter codes. 

When I bought the BP26, I was able to add it to the setup by just selecting the device - no need to go to the dealer.  Harmony will work with any manufacturer you point them to.
[...]

Yesterday evening I returned a Harmony One to Futureshop. It didn't work with BP-6, although the Logitech web site lists it as supported. Got to level 2 tech support at Logitech and still no joy. They eventually said that the only thing I could do is to "learn" from existing remote. Thank you, but at $250 a pop I was expecting more from the Harmony.

Nap. 

[whanafi]

I guess it is a case of who has more to gain. 

The Harmony is now the largest and most popular universal/intelligent remote out there, shipping orders of more magnitude product than any specialist audio vendor. 

That suggests that Bryston should make the effort to get their codes into the data base rather than force customers to get it done. 

That is of course unless Bryston (quite reasonably) are trying to protect their revenue from remote controls.

[Napalm]

From Logitech part, would it be intentional misrepresentation or a honest mistake?

Nap. 

[whanafi]

I have no idea. 

The original company, Harmony, always had great customer service, much like Slim Devices.  Both got acquired by Logitech and from various comments, I assume their customer service operations were absorbed Borg-like into the mothership.  That would ague for incompetence rather than malfeasance.

[Napalm]

Have to disagree with you here.  I think the Harmony approach is brilliant.  You are comparing it to a learning remote, instead of what it is, a data base driven device.  I have had learning remotes, and it is a pain to teach all the commands.  That was the whole point of the approach to creating a master data base so that people don't have to enter codes.

It is brilliant in a certain sense.

Let me know how it will work out for you when your model will be "discontinued" and you'll need to reprogram your remote and the Logitech site will tell you that your model is discontinued and unsupported and you should buy their newest model.

Or when their software won't work after Windows 7 Service Pack 1 and for months you won't be able to reprogram your remote.

Nap. 

[skunark]

I beg to differ.

"Having files available over Ethernet" means to me a network file system (like NFS). The client "sees" all the files available and can initiate reading any of them at any time, at the maximum speed allowed by the network/disk bandwidth.

"Streaming" means that the client doesn't have access to the file system, but only to a real time data stream sent by the server (like in RTSP or RTP protocols). This poses several problems when high quality playback is sought (like in you're not allowed to skip any frames for example).

Nap. 

To add...

Streaming normally requires additional software on the server to support player's protocol.   Both the server and the client could adjust the contents in the file. i.e. server would convert flac,alac, mp3, etc to PCM before it ships it to the client.  Client might add an effect or adjust volume.

The BDP-1 will just read the files from the storage device and convert it.   (And I hope it's not NFS, I've disabled that on my last linux box five years ago and went with just SMB and SSH).

Also, streaming seems to be more sensitive to network bandwidth because of the RTSP/RTP methods.


James, will the BDP-1 normalize the volume across various files, formats?   

[werd]

Hi James

Speaking of which. Will the BDP1 have any remote functionability from the Br2 (probably not but just asking)?  And more importantly will the BDP1 interfere with the BR2's ability to interface with play functions on foobar?

[sfraser]

To add...

Streaming normally requires additional software on the server to support player's protocol.   Both the server and the client could adjust the contents in the file. i.e. server would convert flac,alac, mp3, etc to PCM before it ships it to the client.  Client might add an effect or adjust volume.

The BDP-1 will just read the files from the storage device and convert it.   (And I hope it's not NFS, I've disabled that on my last linux box five years ago and went with just SMB and SSH).

Also, streaming seems to be more sensitive to network bandwidth because of the RTSP/RTP methods.


James, will the BDP-1 normalize the volume across various files, formats?

Depending on the stored file format the squeezeserver or the squeezebox can perform the music file decoding back to PCM.

Also with the BDP the file will be pulled from the storage location (NAS or USB drive). With the Logitech Squeeze approach the music is pushed to the squeezebox player.

[James Tanner]

To add...

Streaming normally requires additional software on the server to support player's protocol.   Both the server and the client could adjust the contents in the file. i.e. server would convert flac,alac, mp3, etc to PCM before it ships it to the client.  Client might add an effect or adjust volume.

The BDP-1 will just read the files from the storage device and convert it.   (And I hope it's not NFS, I've disabled that on my last linux box five years ago and went with just SMB and SSH).

Also, streaming seems to be more sensitive to network bandwidth because of the RTSP/RTP methods.


James, will the BDP-1 normalize the volume across various files, formats?

Hi - it will be NFS and no it does not play with the file at all.
james

[James Tanner]

Hi James

Speaking of which. Will the BDP1 have any remote functionability from the Br2 (probably not but just asking)?  And more importantly will the BDP1 interfere with the BR2's ability to interface with play functions on foobar?

hi Werd,

I am going to try that tonight - I know it works great on Media Monkey and Foobar.

james

[ricko01]

So the BDP1's basic architecture is correct... any "in my rack"  or "inside my listening room" music replay device that contains a hard drive is not a viable product for four reasons:

1- if a properitary solution (ie not a PC) you get screwed on the price of the disk storage
2- the noise/heat of a disk drive inside the music replay device makes it less than optimal for use inside a rack/room  (as well as a potential source of signal noise)
3- You are locked into a limited upgrade disk path
4- Externalising the disk storage means that you can take advantage of the smart RAID storage units that are common place in the computer world.


Now where the BDP1 is wrong in my opinion is its a more limited version of the Slimdevices Transporter (which I own).... which makes it a hard sell in the market place.

If we put aside any "speeds and feeds" comparison between the BDP1 and theTransporter, the one feature that I love about the Slimdevices Transporter is the  built in display. I dont need a PC somewhere in or close to my listening room/seat to control the interface and using some small handheld device doesnt add much value in my opinion. The size of the screen on these small handheld devices doesnt make viewing album art worth it.

Being able to control the Transporter  directly with a simple remote would mean I would still buy it even if the BDP1 was also available. And the Transporter is no slouch in terms of sound quality.

Now... if Bryston added a text display and a remote like the Transporter, then the playing field is level as I use the Transporter "simply" as a computer file decoder into my BDA-1, which is exactly what the BDP1 does.

Final comment is that yes... the BDP1 with a small handheld device makes it "Transporter like"... but the issue is... I need a  handheld that can CONTROL a PC  (which implies some remote control software like VNC... and getting that up and running isnt easy).

Because Brytson does not provide its own PC based software solution to use with the BDP1, it is left to the end user to handle how this works...where as with the Transporter, you get a complete solution. Use the Transporter text interface.... use a small hand held or use a full PC with the Transporter web browser interface... the choice is yours.

I am not knocking Brytson here..  but experience has shown that the user interface is what makes a product successful.  If you have two technically similar products, the one with the best interface wins.... or even a technically inferior product with a better interface can also win.


Peter

[skunark]

So the BDP1's basic architecture is correct... any "in my rack"  or "inside my listening room" music replay device that contains a hard drive is not a viable product for four reasons:

1- if a properitary solution (ie not a PC) you get screwed on the price of the disk storage
2- the noise/heat of a disk drive inside the music replay device makes it less than optimal for use inside a rack/room  (as well as a potential source of signal noise)
3- You are locked into a limited upgrade disk path
4- Externalising the disk storage means that you can take advantage of the smart RAID storage units that are common place in the computer world.


Now where the BDP1 is wrong in my opinion is its a more limited version of the Slimdevices Transporter (which I own).... which makes it a hard sell in the market place.

If we put aside any "speeds and feeds" comparison between the BDP1 and theTransporter, the one feature that I love about the Slimdevices Transporter is the  built in display. I dont need a PC somewhere in or close to my listening room/seat to control the interface and using some small handheld device doesnt add much value in my opinion. The size of the screen on these small handheld devices doesnt make viewing album art worth it.

Being able to control the Transporter  directly with a simple remote would mean I would still buy it even if the BDP1 was also available. And the Transporter is no slouch in terms of sound quality.

Now... if Bryston added a text display and a remote like the Transporter, then the playing field is level as I use the Transporter "simply" as a computer file decoder into my BDA-1, which is exactly what the BDP1 does.

Final comment is that yes... the BDP1 with a small handheld device makes it "Transporter like"... but the issue is... I need a  handheld that can CONTROL a PC  (which implies some remote control software like VNC... and getting that up and running isnt easy).

Because Brytson does not provide its own PC based software solution to use with the BDP1, it is left to the end user to handle how this works...where as with the Transporter, you get a complete solution. Use the Transporter text interface.... use a small hand held or use a full PC with the Transporter web browser interface... the choice is yours.

I am not knocking Brytson here..  but experience has shown that the user interface is what makes a product successful.  If you have two technically similar products, the one with the best interface wins.... or even a technically inferior product with a better interface can also win.


Peter

The remote will most likely be an iPod Touch or an iPad (as mentioned) and for two hundred bucks an iPod touch is still cheaper than the Bryston remote and probably more functional if you pick up a global cache box that does a WiFi to IR repeater.  So the potential to have  a very good remove is there and would be amazing to have it also control other devices.  I think most folks who don't consider an iPod touch do it on an anti-Apple level and not on a functional level. 

I totally agree with you that products user interface is very important.  My living room TV does DLNA just like the PS3 and XBOX 360 can do but the family tends to only use the Apple TV to play music.   So I have four very capable devices, but it's clear Apple has the better user interface.  I've been told on several occasions that the universal remote is extremely complicated and has brought at least one family member to tears because they couldn't watch some cheesy reality show (bah.. ).

So the simplicity of the BDP-1 solution is very important to me, and I'm glad you can use an iPod/iPad to control it and I hope one day to just have an old iPod touch or even an iPad as the remote to the entire set up that doesn't look or act like a traditional remote. i.e. there's no need to know the channel numbers anymore, just press the TV station icon and everything is commanded so it just works.

What does concern me with the BDP-1 is NFS and supported file times of just AIFF, WAV and FLAC.    I would really would want AAC and MP3 to work as well.

[whanafi]

It is brilliant in a certain sense.

Let me know how it will work out for you when your model will be "discontinued" and you'll need to reprogram your remote and the Logitech site will tell you that your model is discontinued and unsupported and you should buy their newest model.

Or when their software won't work after Windows 7 Service Pack 1 and for months you won't be able to reprogram your remote.

Nap. 

We are talking about a consumer product that does the job it is advertised for.  There is no implicit guarantee that it will be future proof.  My web cam stopped working when Win7 came out as did a printer and scanner.  That's reality with computers and fast moving consumer goods.  It is not a Bryston with a 20 year warranty, it is relatively cheap computing device with a touch interface and simple UI.

It is also a free market - if you don't like it, don't buy it.  Why criticize what it DOESN'T do instead of focusing on what it DOES?
 

[ricko01]

The remote will most likely be an iPod Touch or an iPad (as mentioned) and for two hundred bucks

My point about remote control was subtle but its meaniningful.

So lets say you use mediakmoney as your music manager. How do you control that remotely from an  iPod/iPad (or any other remote device)?

I have tried but found no PC based music managers that have an inbuilt webserver that I can connect say a Nokia 770 tablet to.... which leaves you with trying to install and use some kind of remote connection software like vnc.
 
The issue isnt the hardware in my hand but how that hardware can connect to my PC so I can manage my collection remotely.

So the solution is to use iTunes?.... thats the only choice I have?...

As I say, at least with the Transporter I get it all in one simple to use package that is DESIGNED to work with the Transporter (ie. I can control the configuration of the server component and the the Transporter from the one interface).

To me that is the killer app and makes or breaks the deal and in the market place it makes it a tough competitor for the Bryston music server.

[golfugh]

http://melloware.com/

Mediamonkey and J River remote apps for the iPhone, et all

[whanafi]

My point about remote control was subtle but its meaniningful.

So lets say you use mediakmoney as your music manager. How do you control that remotely from an  iPod/iPad (or any other remote device)?

I have tried but found no PC based music managers that have an inbuilt webserver that I can connect say a Nokia 770 tablet to.... which leaves you with trying to install and use some kind of remote connection software like vnc.
 
The issue isnt the hardware in my hand but how that hardware can connect to my PC so I can manage my collection remotely.

So the solution is to use iTunes?.... thats the only choice I have?...

As I say, at least with the Transporter I get it all in one simple to use package that is DESIGNED to work with the Transporter (ie. I can control the configuration of the server component and the the Transporter from the one interface).

To me that is the killer app and makes or breaks the deal and in the market place it makes it a tough competitor for the Bryston music server.

Since Squeezebox Server has a web interface, you can also control it from a Nokia tablet or any other computer (Mac, PC, Linux) with a web browser.  You can also use an iPod Touch with iPeng. 

That's what makes it so powerful, and I agree with you that the Transporter/software combo is a great way to handle digital music.  It just works.

I am getting a BDA-1 to see if there is any audible difference between the Transporter and the Bryston as a DAC, but I don't see any benefit in replacing the transport layer with something more basic.

[whanafi]

James,
The question about the digital interface on the BDP got swept away in the discussion.  Can I ask for a response to the observations by Sean Adams about the AES/EBU suitability for digital signals?



1. XLRs are horrible RF connectors. In order to send a square wave fairly faithfully the interface must support a bandwidth many times higher than the frequency of the square wave. For the signals in question that is getting well up into the RF spectrum where the XLRs are terrible. The impedance varies radically with frequency which will cause all kinds of bizarre reflections. The choice of XLR was a very poor choice.

2. Output voltage. The S/PDIF electrical spec is 0.5V into 75ohms, but the AES/EBU is 3-5V into 110 ohms. Think about that for a second, what happens when you put 5volts across 110 ohms? You get almost 50mA of current flowing. This means the driver sitting in the source box has to be able to dump between 30-50ma into the cable. That causes huge current spikes in the power and ground pins of the driver chip which is going to cause big noise spikes in the power and ground planes of the board. If you are not extremely careful that is going to cause significant jitter in the output signal.

All modern high speed interfaces use less than 0.5V signal.

As far as I can tell the XLRs were chosen because studios had lots of microphone cables and wanted to use them. Because they are such lousy RF transmission lines they had to go with high voltages to make sure there was some signal left at the end.

You're think of the word clock feature.

AES/EBU doesn't fix anything in s/pdif, it makes it worse. It uses wiring and connectors that lack the bandwidth and impedance matching for RF signaling. Just because XLRs are suitable for analog audio doesn't make them good for high frequencies. It's included on Transporter frankly because of legacy expectations, and perhaps in a pro environment you might need it for one reason or another (got the cable handy, used up all the other inputs, etc) but I don't recommend it.

TOSLINK (as observed at a receiving device) is always worse, like +100 to 200 ps regardless of how good the source is. Coax is the only way to go if you care about jitter, although optical has the advantage of being inherently isolated which could help in a system having EMI or ground loop problems. That's why you get both