[lcrim]

The attraction of PC audio to me anyway, was the huge performance benefit versus the dollars spent.  The SB looks acceptable and was only $300.  A few improvements were easy to justify but @ $2000, DU is right, my expectations would change.  I don't believe that the value is there @ that price level.  If they charge half that and the DAC is decent (doesn't require mods to sound acceptable) then they have a salable product but jeez two grand is too much for me and you still need to supply a PC.

[nathanm]

But the Transporter works the same way as the Squeezebox, so why does it make sense for the SB but not the Transporter?

Technically it doesn't.  Only in relation to each other does the Transport seem odd.  The Squeezebox seems sort of like just a small display device, a glorified remote control. With the price difference I would just expect the more expensive model to do something the cheaper one couldn't.  I mean, it's a large metal box - shouldn't there be some storage in there?  And it does have features that the SB doesn't, just not in the way I would expect, that's all.

[JohnnyLightOn]

I don't think internal storage would be a benefit here.  After all, there's a reason for the name...Transporter.  Internal storage adds noise, heat, and maintenance issues.  Once people realize how cheap and easy it is to keep ones music on a central server, or on a standalone NAS device, they'll see why it's only the transporter and not the storage.  To have yet another device in the house which needs backing up, software upgrades, etc. is not necessary.  For $150, you can throw a huge, reliable hard disk into your home computer, and, voila, your music server is done.  Want to upgrade that storage?  It's as easy as typing a few keystokes on Newegg and it shows up at your door; nothing proprietary or expensive to deal with.  There's a very neat division between the device on which you rip and store your music (and all your other files as well), and the devices on which you listen to your music.

What the Transporter needs to have for this price is look, feel, and SOUND SOUND SOUND.  It should compete with the best CD players when used as a transport to an outboard DAC, without the need for mods or replacement power supplies.  Even better would be a Transporter with such a good internal DAC that even those with good ears and high-end systems won't want to add one, though that remains to be seen.

[Papajin]

Seems to me some of the arguments here are actually over semantics by people that just have slightly different needs/desires.  Some people already have a PC or prefer some other type of remote storage solution such as a NAS, and for them the Slim Devices products make great sense, while other people prefer a 1 box solution that handles everything for them.  Personally I don't think either approach is wrong, just different, and there's plenty of room for gear that satisfies either preference.

The real question for me personally is... Is the jump from a modded SB2/3 to a Transporter really worth the extra money?  Or put another way, would I personally be able to hear enough of a difference to justify the difference in cost?  I'm not really sure as I'm completely unfamiliar with the DAC in the new unit, and of course, I've never heard the Transporter itself, so I can only guess.  Not sure if I'm willing to take a $1699'ish gamble.

Now over and above the argument of whether or not a 1 box solution or remote server solution is better... I think the addition of just a solid cd transport would have made the Transporter far more interesting to a lot of people.  A 1 box solution for all your (2-channel) digital music playback would be a really nice thing to have IMHO (assuming that DAC is as good as I assume it is), and would have made that $2000 price tag seem a lot more palatable, but that's just me.  $2000 would put the Transporter in the same ballpark as the rest of the gear in my system currently.

[PhilNYC]

The real question for me personally is... Is the jump from a modded SB2/3 to a Transporter really worth the extra money?  Or put another way, would I personally be able to hear enough of a difference to justify the difference in cost?  I'm not really sure as I'm completely unfamiliar with the DAC in the new unit, and of course, I've never heard the Transporter itself, so I can only guess.  Not sure if I'm willing to take a $1699'ish gamble.

There are a couple of additional benefits beyond just the sound quality (although I agree that for me personally, this is the biggest question).  The fact that it has a digital input means that you can run other sources through its DAC (eg. satallite/cable box, DVD player, Playstation/XBox, etc).  It also has an RS232 port for use with external controllers like Crestron.

With regards to the lack of internal hard drive, I agree that its just a matter of meeting different needs.  For me, I don't want one, and its probably the reason why I didn't get all excited about the Olive Opus (even though Jeff Kalt, one of my favorite audio designers, designed the audio section of it)...and it's why my eyes lit up when I saw the Transporter.

Certainly I will be very excited WHEN we get the opportunity to compare these things head to head for sound quality (and we will...I'm on the list for the Transporter and I know a couple of guys from the NY Rave have picked up the Olive Musica unit, so a shootout is bound to happen...!)

[shokunin]

I agree with papajin and Phil.  The olive vs. sb are more along the lines of client based vs. server based audio.  Neither is wrong just personal preferences.  I personally prefer not to have ANY local storage, noise, heat, vibration, of an additional hard drive within my audio rack.  I am a computer geek so I have multi-TB servers, LTO backup drives, etc that I can use for central storage. 

The transporter isn't replacing the Squeezebox 3 so it's just another product in their portfolio, albeit an expensive one.  The value in the SB platform design allows a family to proliferate a bunch of Squeezeboxes around the house at (relatively) low cost.  I can imagine when the SB4 is out, how cheaply an sb2 or sb3 might sell for on ebay.  When the prices fall, I buy one to put in my woodshop.

Here's the plus I see in the Transportless..

96khz / 24 bit audio (not sure how this will be handled via Slimserver 6.5)
Word clock input (I have a DAC that can output WORD clock so it's a plus for me)
Can be used as a DAC and Preamp
The "free" squeezebox could be used as a remote control / remote display

The question of value and performance is still questionable until we get our hands on them. 

[PhilNYC]

Just thought I'd mention...I just signed up as a SlimDevices reseller, so my comments are no longer unbiased...

[JoshK]

First I'll speak for Phil, knowing that he isn't going to make much money on the SD box, at least not compared to his other income.   I don't really count him biased.

I am one of the crowd where internal storage is not needed nor wanted.  Paying up for internal storage is both detrimental to performance and seriously for price/performance.   I am those like me can build a storage box/NAS/or whatever have you that can provide that service for much better economics.  The UI is the price defacto...enter the rein of the SB.

My understanding of slimdevices' economics was more of an upmarket performance decision, although I could be wrong.  I thought it was Sean's decision to compete against the modders and offer a more serious audiophile product in terms of performance at a premium audiophile price.   If the performance gains are met, I think he will do well.  If not, the market will decide....we all know it's a brutal market.

[PhilNYC]

My understanding of slimdevices' economics was more of an upmarket performance decision, although I could be wrong.  I thought it was Sean's decision to compete against the modders and offer a more serious audiophile product in terms of performance at a premium audiophile price.   If the performance gains are met, I think he will do well.  If not, the market will decide....we all know it's a brutal market.

Another factor was a product that could meet the needs of home installers who were looking for multi-room solutions that are friendly to network storage (vs. the more expensive alternatives like Request.com and others).

Anyways...josh, thanks for speaking up for me...

[JoshK]

But I thought the SB2/3 did that in terms of competing on multi-room network friendly basis. It is for me.

[PhilNYC]

But I thought the SB2/3 did that in terms of competing on multi-room network friendly basis. It is for me.

Yes, but the Transporter has an RS-232 port to allow it to be controlled by Crestron and other controllers.  So not just multi-room from the perspective of having a unit in each room, but being able to remotely control each unit from a handheld controller (yes, you can control a SB2/3 remotely from your PC...)