Home AMXForums Archive Threads Residential Forum

Escient Vision NO LONGER available

RicardoSiqueiraRicardoSiqueira Junior MemberPosts: 373
It looks like the Escient has canned the Vision line. See article below:

http://www.cepro.com/article/what_happened_to_escient_vision_media_servers/#When:11:18:00Z

What else do you guys use that is reliable and not too expensive?
«1

Comments

  • TonyAngeloTonyAngelo Code Monkey Posts: 315
    Kalidascape is the only one worth using.
  • glr-ftiglr-fti Junior Member Posts: 286
    Kaleidescape has an excellent product. ReQuest's IMC is also worth a look for a lower cost solution as it uses off the shelf NAS..
  • DHawthorneDHawthorne Junior Member Posts: 4,584
    ReQuest seems to be moving strongly towards NAS as a standard ... which Escient should have done from the start. 90% of my Escient repairs have been hard drive failures. However, I haven't sold a new Escient in over a year because of the reliability issue.
  • patbpatb Junior Member Posts: 140
    I just did an install using Boxee with the VGA output of the computer fed into a VGA input on the touch panel. They were using an IR mouse for directional arrows and clicks. Worked really slick. The nice part? The cost of Boxee - FREE. You only have the cost of a computer and you can drop as much or as little into that as you want depending on the video quality that you want. For true 1080P you should get a speedy processor, lots of memory and a nice graphics card. Still you're looking at maybe $600-$700.

    Yes you have to rip your own movies, but with the copyright stuff going on that a given now anyway. Even Kscape is being hit and its future is in the air. None of the media servers are doing the ripping now anyway and if they are, not for long. Since I've seen Boxee I've become a big fan.
  • Spire_JeffSpire_Jeff Formerly Caffeinated Programmer Posts: 1,917
    patb wrote: »
    Yes you have to rip your own movies, but with the copyright stuff going on that a given now anyway. Even Kscape is being hit and its future is in the air. None of the media servers are doing the ripping now anyway and if they are, not for long.

    I have a problem recommending that my clients do something that appears to have a good chance of being illegal. Even if you feel strongly that the copyright laws are not fair or whatever, you still have to get a judge to agree with you or risk winding up in jail or spending enough in fines to finance your own movie.

    Another problem I have is the complexity of ripping movies. Some of our clients are afraid to turn on the TV because pushing the Cable TV button is scary! There is no way that they could 'rip' (which could be short for 'rip off' ) movies without weeks of hand holding and training.... which opens the door to liability (in my mind). The other option is to do all of the ripping for them (even more liability).

    Lastly, I have a problem with the MacGuyverish approach. While there are a few clients that like the feeling of a bleeding edge system that is trying to break new ground, most of my clients would focus on the words BLEEDING and BREAK. I have enough problems with "Reliable" gear breaking. I don't need to add a computer and beta software to the mix at this point :)

    Just my 4 or 5 cents :)

    Jeff
  • ericmedleyericmedley Senior Member - 4000+ posts Posts: 4,177
    I agree with the previous post in that we're selling a client a device that could be deemed illegal overnight. We carry both KScape and ReQueswt and really like both products. KScape is one lawsuit away from being shut down. It's worrisome in that the opposition to them keeps coming back at them repeatedly.

    It seems clear enough that they don't like what ripper-based systems do. Since they are ultimately the content provider, this will only end up going their way. How it happens is merely a small detail.

    All of this is probably moot because streaming on demand seems to be getting a lot of traction. I bought and AppleTV and haven't purchased or rented a DVD in over a year. I haven't gone the NetFlix route yet but many of our clients just love it.
  • alexsquaredalexsquared Junior Member Posts: 166
    I know its still "BETA" but are there any signs of control/integration with AMX and Boxee?
  • viningvining X Member Posts: 4,358
    alexsquared wrote:
    I know its still "BETA" but are there any signs of control/integration with AMX and Boxee?

    Boxee website:
    Everything you want.
    The Boxee Box brings all your favorite TV shows & movies from the Internet or your hard drive onto your TV - no PC needed.
    More bang, less buck.
    Why pay for stuff you don't watch? The Boxee Box lets you watch thousands of popular TV shows and movies for FREE!
    Tailored to your TV.
    With the Boxee Box you never need to "surf the Web" on your TV, instead you just use your remote control to pick and choose the best digital entertainment. No keyboard required.
    It plays almost everything.
    The Boxee Box plays any non-DRM media. If you can create it, Boxee will play it.

    I don't get it? Where's it getting TV shows and movies for free? Any non DRM content, you create it you can watch it? Sounds like any other type of media server from Lynksys or this device from Iomega http://go.iomega.com/en-us/products/multimedia-drive/screenplay153-multimedia-drives/screenplay-director/?partner=4760#overviewItem_tab that allows you to stream file on a network to a display.

    Roku has a Netflix box which boasts access to over 40,000 movies with instant streaming. I just installed a couple of VUDU boxes that seem pretty nice with over 5,000 available titles and my customer made a point to let me know about their adult selections and they have an XML protocol for controlling over IP, of course the docs says they don't guarantee the unit will respond?? Don't know what to make of that.

    I've never been a big fan of DVD or dsic drive video archiving since I personally can't think of a movie I'd choose to watch again. Of course if I'm surfing and come across something I've seen before and liked I may watch it again but I wouldn't go into a library to find something I've seen before. Music definitely yes but not movies so with the current choices of live video streaming in DVD or HD quality I don't see a future for distributed media as we've done in the past but a centralized VUDU or Netflix box that could be accessed from any display in the house, sure.
  • viningvining X Member Posts: 4,358
    These NAS / Media servers look pretty interesting (DLNA / UPNP, iTunes Server & iPhone app? ): [url] http://www.synology.com/enu/products/compare_spec.php[/url] just need a bridge like slimserver or soundbridge to distribute audio. ReQuest would probably work too. Use these NAS server to hold your library in some RAID configuration then you just need a simple AMX controllable bridge to connect to your audio system. Iomega has some nice NAS stuff too but I don't know if they have a protocol for 3rd party IP control.


    Looks like you can run the Squeezebox server on a Synology Disk Station: http://www.synology.com/enu/products/features/valueapps.php & phpMyAdmin (MySQL) which opens up alot of other possibilities.
  • John NagyJohn Nagy CineTouch Product Manager Posts: 1,550
    Or the Vortexbox

    We've been pleased with the VORTEXBOX ( http://vortexbox.org/ )
    Two terrabytes storage with a gigabyte RAM, rip/play tray, onboard operating system that manages and updates itself for onboard slimserver, and lots more. Under $500, small, reliable.

    John
  • viningvining X Member Posts: 4,358
    John Nagy wrote:
    We've been pleased with the VORTEXBOX
    That does look very interesting indeed!
  • patbpatb Junior Member Posts: 140
    To answer some previous questions - I have Boxee and LOVE it. It gets the TV content from the internet - hulu, network TV websites and other places. If a TV show is available in more than one place, for example if LOST is available on hulu and abc.com, if wil let you pick which source you want to use.

    The solution vortexbox that John mentioned sounds a lot like Boxee except for a few differences. I am very interested in vortexbox but want to make sure I understand it. John - since you like it could you comment on my list and see if this sounds right.

    1. Boxee is free. Vortexbox costs $500 and up depending on hard drive size.
    2. Boxee comes in a software only version that allows you to build your own comptuter AND they have just released a stand-alone boxee appliance.
    3. Boxee is a video/music/picture MANAGER and it also draws a lot of content from the internet as well. You need one Boxee per TV, but can read content from any drive either local or network as long as the network drive is mapped to a drive letter.
    4. Vortexbox is a SERVER and not a player. ? You would need to purchase additional vortexbox compatible players to actually play anything.
    5. Vortexbox from what I can tell does more in the sense that it automatically rips CD content (says nothing about DVD) and Boxee only manages content that you have created.

    I read a post in the forum from last month from the admin (Vortexbox employee I would presume) that addresses the player issue.

    "We have spent quite a bit of time building the VortexBox music server platform. Now it's time to look at the other end of the music system, the player. We have not done much with this yet because there are may good players available from Logitech and other companies.

    For VortexBox to be a full audiophile solution it needs a built in player. We are starting research on how to implement a software player that is audiophile quality. We will use existing open source software as much as possible. Please post any comments on this endeavor."

    Both seem interesting and both are early in their development. Neither has AMX control from what I understand.

    I have been able to work around the lack of AMX control in the Boxee by using the dynamic window in TPD4 to show the computer screen in a window. Then I use a wireless mouse (http://www.amazon.com/TS8-Infrared-Wireless-Presenter-Functions/dp/B0012K87C0) to navigate through the screens. I chose an IR mouse so I could capture the IR codes and transmit them from the AMX to give me a full AMX solution with all of the nice GUI effects of Boxee since what I see on the touch panel is the GUI for Boxee itself. All for the cost of a computer and a wireless mouse that costs less than $50.
  • viningvining X Member Posts: 4,358
    From what I've read the Vortex appliance has a stereo audio out jack but I think I would want to use it strictly as storage with the ability rip CD's directly on the device w/o the need to rip from a PC somewhere on the network at a reduced speed and with a greater potential for errors in the recording. I think with the Vortex NAS as your storage you could have as many Slimserver or Roku SoundBridge devices as you need for induvidual zone capabilities. To have an NAS w/ rip station and audio outputs you limit yourself to the number of zones per NAS and you're basically re-inventing the wheel. For that I would just use an Audio ReQuest box.

    The SlimServer (Squeeze Control) already has a module and the SoundBridge module works extremely well with AMX too. Unfortunately the SoundBridge device is in short supply and no longer supported by Roku.

    As far as DVDs go I think that's a dead horse so to speak and since it's easier and cheaper to stream live video I don't see the point in maintaining your own archive. It's also just a matter of time before you can store them with you Beta Max & VHS tapes. I see CD's lasting a bit longer but what do I know?
  • John NagyJohn Nagy CineTouch Product Manager Posts: 1,550
    Read the Vortexbox site for details... but..

    >1. Boxee is free. Vortexbox costs $500 and up depending on hard drive size.
    Vortexbox software is free. The 1 TB with rip tray starts at $350.

    >2. Boxee comes in a software only version that allows you to build your own comptuter AND they have just released a stand-alone boxee appliance.
    Vorextbox software is free for download to use on any box you like.

    >4. Vortexbox is a SERVER and not a player. ? You would need to purchase additional vortexbox compatible players to actually play anything.
    From the website:
    01 Feb 10 VortexBox 1.1 released
    I very excited about this release of VortexBox. We are moving from being just a media server to a music player as well. This version of VortexBox includes VortexBox Player. You can use your internal sound card or external USB DAC to play your music. VortexBox Player supports music recorded at up to 24-bit/192kHz. This is higher then most players support including the Sonos and SqueezeBox line of hardware players.

    >5. Vortexbox from what I can tell does more in the sense that it automatically rips CD content (says nothing about DVD) and Boxee only manages content that you have created.
    Vortexbox also gets cover art and preps your files for multiple media use. They subtly imply in some places that it will rip DVD with the right add-in, but wisely skirt the issue widely so as not to be the next lawsuit closure.

    >Both seem interesting and both are early in their development. Neither has AMX control from what I understand.
    While we haven't had call for BOXEE, the demand for a good RHAPSODY and PANDORA box with a 2-way interface drove us to do Slimserver/Squeezebox (Duet receiver) in a full-on two-way control on AMX, and we implement using the Vortexbox more often than not. We have it doing everything from the panel on CineTouch. (http://cinetouch.com or see the "Packaged solutions" topic here in the forum).

    John Nagy
    Cinetouch
  • viningvining X Member Posts: 4,358
    John,

    1, Can the SqueezeBox Duet (base w/o remote) work w/o the SqueezeBox server running on a PC or NAS like the ones from Synology? I know the SoundBridge device can connect to anything that has DLNA/UpNP, iTunes Server, DAAP running. Can the SqueezeBox Duet do this?

    2, Can the Vortex Player run the Squeeze Box server. I can't seem to find any that says it does.

    3, Does the AMX SqueezeControl module only talks to the server and not the base player? I know with the Roku SoundBridge you connect to the SoundBridge and it connects you to anything on the network that has an iTunes Server running, DLNA/UpNP, or DAAP.

    4, If you want to use the Vortex Player as a source player with its audio outs how do you control it?
  • John NagyJohn Nagy CineTouch Product Manager Posts: 1,550
    1, Can the SqueezeBox Duet (base w/o remote) work w/o the SqueezeBox server running on a PC or NAS like the ones from Synology? I know the SoundBridge device can connect to anything that has DLNA/UpNP, iTunes Server, DAAP running. Can the SqueezeBox Duet do this?
    You can control Squeezebox through SLIMSERVER (which is what we talk to) on any platform SLIMSERVER runs on. I don't know about the others you mention.

    2, Can the Vortex Player run the Squeeze Box server. I can't seem to find any that says it does.
    The Vortexbox includes SLIMSERVER, which runs the Squeezebox communication. You actually get TWO Squeezebox independent outputs in this configuration, the VORTEXBOX acts as a completely independent output with all the same controls as the duet receiver box. The VORTEXBOX also does automatic self-updating.

    3, Does the AMX SqueezeControl module only talks to the server and not the base player? I know with the Roku SoundBridge you connect to the SoundBridge and it connects you to anything on the network that has an iTunes Server running, DLNA/UpNP, or DAAP.
    I don't know what the AMX module does, we wrote our own due to the requirements of our database driven architecture. But we were unable to talk to the Duet receiver directly. The protocols supposedly exist but change without documentation, and are incomplete... no one claims to know. So we talk through a SLIMSERVER, wherever you put one.

    4, If you want to use the Vortex Player as a source player with its audio outs how do you control it?
    When you go to "connect" to your "squeezebox" you see TWO (actually sometimes three, one isn't real), and one is the Vortexbox itself. They both work alike. Our implementation figures out which is real automatically and connects upon source selection.

    Note that the upgrade to 7.4 Squeezebox firmware radically changed communication protocols. All the systems built before October 2009 fail with the new firmware, and the old firmware is no longer supported online so it fails too. The upside is that the 7.4 is supposedly the new platform-wide protocol for the Squeezebox "family of products" which were formerly all different. We'll see if this leads anywhere...

    The above is my understanding of what is what... I didn't do the programming. Our engineer would be willing to chat about what it took to make it work if you are implementing your own. Contact me if you want to do that.

    John Nagy
    http://CineTouch.com
  • John NagyJohn Nagy CineTouch Product Manager Posts: 1,550
    Vortexbox

    By the way, the Vortexbox and Squeezebox do nicely for local music - with cover art, search, etc. Almost like a REQUEST.

    The Internet radio implementation is also AMAZING, many hundreds of stations with logos and cover art and metadata for songs and search... really nice.

    The ability to save anything from anywhere as a favorite for later access is really nice... go to your favorites and it has your best from Pandora, local, Iradio, whatever.

    John
  • DHawthorneDHawthorne Junior Member Posts: 4,584
    I assume Slimserver is the same as Squeezecenter, or works the same ... the implementation I am using runs Squeezecenter. This particular project I did not code myself, I purchased it from a third party (way too much work to re-invent :) ).

    Last I checked, you couldn't control a Squeezebox directly, you had to control it via the Squeezecenter on a PC. The problem was the Squeezebox could only connect to one device at a time ... it either went online directly, or it connected to your Squeezecenter. Either way, you couldn't connect an AMX directly to the Squeezebox as well. However, you could connect to Squeezecenter and control it indirectly.

    It would be nice if they changed this, but you really do get a whole lot more catalog and media data going through Squeezecenter.
  • viningvining X Member Posts: 4,358
    DHawthorne wrote:
    Last I checked, you couldn't control a Squeezebox directly, you had to control it via the Squeezecenter on a PC. The problem was the Squeezebox could only connect to one device at a time ... it either went online directly, or it connected to your Squeezecenter. Either way, you couldn't connect an AMX directly to the Squeezebox as well. However, you could connect to Squeezecenter and control it indirectly.
    Hmmm, that's not what I wanted to hear. I was hoping to do multiple zones similiar to buying 3 or 4 Roku SoundBridge devices and pulling music files froma common NAS or personal PCs if they choose. The Synology NAS I mentioned earlier can run the SlimeServer (SqueezeCenter) server program so that's better than needing a PC up and running but only being able to connect one client at a time kind of sucks.

    Of course if what John said is true and the Vortex box w/ a rip tray and 1 or 2 TB can comes bundled w/ the SlimServer and acts as a player/client that's not so bad. I'm would think each Vortex box could source files on other Vortex boxes and PC's if one chooses and $379 isn't so bad per box/zone either. Could possible buy a larger capacity NAS and mirror rip cds to it. I think I want to play but I need a better understanding before I amass more stuff that ends in my junk pile.
  • jazzwyldjazzwyld Registered User Posts: 199
    I'll make a vote for Kscape and Request's IMC.
  • John NagyJohn Nagy CineTouch Product Manager Posts: 1,550
    vining wrote: »
    DHawthorne wrote:

    Hmmm, that's not what I wanted to hear. I was hoping to do multiple zones similiar to buying 3 or 4 Roku SoundBridge devices and pulling music files froma common NAS or personal PCs if they choose.

    You misunderstand. "A" Squeezebox can only be controlled by a Slim/Squeezeserver OR its remote. But the Slim/Squeezeserver can control multiple Squeezeboxes. We've ganged only 3 so far in our tests but we anticipate up to 8 in our configurations and each can share one or multiple music repositories.

    In our implementation, each box (plus the server itself if you want) appears as an independent source choice. We also have "source pools" where the user only asks for a Squeezebox, and gets the next unused one. This makes it easier to satisfy everyone with fewer units.

    John
  • viningvining X Member Posts: 4,358
    John Nagy wrote:
    You misunderstand.
    Usually!

    I thought I read in an earlier post that the VortexBox ran Slim(SqueezeServer) so I guess it just asks as a Squeeze client? Not both?
    > "The Vortexbox includes SLIMSERVER"
    But the Slim/Squeezeserver can control multiple Squeezeboxes.
    Concurrently?
  • John NagyJohn Nagy CineTouch Product Manager Posts: 1,550
    vining wrote: »
    I thought I read in an earlier post that the VortexBox ran Slim(SqueezeServer) so I guess it just asks as a Squeeze client? Not both?
    > "The Vortexbox includes SLIMSERVER
    Concurrently?

    I've asked our engineer CJ Butcher for details. He says "Slimserver" appears to be the old and abandoned name for the PC/Vortexbox/Whatever server software. Effective with 7.4 late last year, it is called Squeezebox Server... regardless, it in included in the Vortexbox and can be run on any flavor PC I believe... and through which you can select which of many squeezeboxes (or the Vortex output) you wish to command at the moment. Concurrently.

    The Squeezebox Server it what you talk to in order to control your Squeezebox(es). It provides communication with SQUEEZE CENTER (the web online presence you register your boxes with) to be interactive with the boxes you choose.

    John
  • viningvining X Member Posts: 4,358
    Ok, so the Vortex box is both a client and a server which is what I was saying in the last post and that works fine for multiple zone and is actually preffered since each zone can have it's Vortex box local for ripping new CD but all Vortex boxes would be accessible through the each other's SqueezeBox server since each box would be running their own. $379.00 isn't bad at all per zone with their own rip tray and 1TB of storage. Plus is you choose you could install a dedicated NAS w/ raid and it would be as reliable as any $5K + system. It's also been discussed that many other companies include ReQuest (I think) was leaning toward the NAS approach where they provide the box/logic and someone else provides the NAS.

    Now you eluded my other question. If I'm running a typical SqueezeCenter (slimserver) on a PC or some other platform and I have multiple Squeeze Bases (Duet w/o remote) how many can connect concurrently? DHawthorne's post indicated only one client can connect at a time which is sort of defeats the purpose of having multiple Squeeze bases.
  • John NagyJohn Nagy CineTouch Product Manager Posts: 1,550
    vining wrote: »
    Ok, so the Vortex box is both a client and a server which is what I was saying in the last post and that works fine for multiple zone and is actually preffered since each zone can have it's Vortex box local for ripping new CD but all Vortex boxes would be accessible through the each other's SqueezeBox server since each box would be running their own. $379.00 isn't bad at all per zone with their own rip tray and 1TB of storage. Plus is you choose you could install a dedicated NAS w/ raid and it would be as reliable as any $5K + system. It's also been discussed that many other companies include ReQuest (I think) was leaning toward the NAS approach where they provide the box/logic and someone else provides the NAS.
    Well, to a point. The Squeezeserver does not AGGREGATE collections to see local content in multiple locations as ONE library. So the more places you store music, the more individual collections you'll need to navigate to find your content. The NAS approach is best, one library, one collection. There's a cheaper still VORTEXBOX with no drive...
    vining wrote: »
    Now you eluded my other question. If I'm running a typical SqueezeCenter (slimserver) on a PC or some other platform and I have multiple Squeeze Bases (Duet w/o remote) how many can connect concurrently? DHawthorne's post indicated only one client can connect at a time which is sort of defeats the purpose of having multiple Squeeze bases.
    I didn't intend to elude... I don't know if there is an upper limit on how many receivers you can run in one network from a single Squeeze server... based on the manner the menus are formed, the answer is certainly "many". There was nothing declaring a limit in the info we reviewed when making our implementation (we default to setting up buffers for 4 in our standard implementation, but can raise it if required by a big job or if more experience shows we need more). Something to find out from the makers of Squeeze.

    John
  • viningvining X Member Posts: 4,358
    John Nagy wrote:
    The Squeezeserver does not AGGREGATE collections to see local content in multiple locations as ONE library.
    I didn't expect it to. I prefer the seperate libraries and if need be all Vortex boxes could mirror to a common NAS but I really don't see a need and as long as each library is accessible I'm happy.

    I think I'm ready to play now and see how viable this method will be as an alternate reliable music server. My only real concern now is how long the Vortex makers will be around and supporting their products. As soon as I started using the Roku SoundBridge and spent 100's of hours writing a module for it they just sort of died. At least there are already free modules for this that are open which would allow for easy tweaking.
  • yuriyuri Junior Member Posts: 861
    I don't really like the VortexBox. It looks like a rip-off...

    This is what i have:

    a QNAP TS-110 NAS with 1,5 tb of storage.
    It runs the Squeezecenter (Or Slimserver, of whatever you want to call it), so the squeezebox duet I'm using can connect to the NAS.

    The NAS + HDD have cost me about 200 euro's, the NAS alone would cost about 130 euro's.

    The cool thing about this solution is that I can also use the NAS as a download station, AND stream movies to my TV using an Xbox360 or something similar!

    Give it a go, you won't be disappointed!
  • viningvining X Member Posts: 4,358
    yuri wrote:
    I don't really like the VortexBox. It looks like a rip-off...
    The QNAP TS-110 NAS looks like a rip off to the Synology NAS's I looked at. :)
    http://www.synology.com/enu/products/compare_spec.php
    http://www.qnap.com/images/products/comparison/Comparison_NAS.html

    However the QNAP doesn't appear to run the SlimServer (SqueezeCenter) server onboard like the Synology NAS's. They both don't have audio output capability and most important for me they both don't have an automactic rip tray that allows users to insert a cd and have it rip automatically and re-index the files. To me these features make a more legimate music server solution so I already went and ordered one for testing. If it wasn't for the rip tray I would have gone the Synology route which can aslo run the SqueezeServer but since it doesn't have the onboard rip tray I felt the Vortex box would be better. I thought about just using PC's or laprtop to ripp to the NAS but started reading about the reduced ripping speeds and possible errors being introduced by this method so that also made me lean towards the Vortex box.
  • yuriyuri Junior Member Posts: 861
    vining wrote: »
    yuri wrote:

    The QNAP TS-110 NAS looks like a rip off to the Synology NAS's I looked at. :)
    http://www.synology.com/enu/products/compare_spec.php
    http://www.qnap.com/images/products/comparison/Comparison_NAS.html

    However the QNAP doesn't appear to run the SlimServer (SqueezeCenter) server onboard like the Synology NAS's. They both don't have audio output capability and most important for me they both don't have an automactic rip tray that allows users to insert a cd and have it rip automatically and re-index the files. To me these features make a more legimate music server solution so I already went and ordered one for testing. If it wasn't for the rip tray I would have gone the Synology route which can aslo run the SqueezeServer but since it doesn't have the onboard rip tray I felt the Vortex box would be better. I thought about just using PC's or laprtop to ripp to the NAS but started reading about the reduced ripping speeds and possible errors being introduced by this method so that also made me lean towards the Vortex box.

    It is. Well, not really a rip-off, but it's a look-a-like.

    If you look closely, you would notice the QNAP TS-110 has 256 mb ram onboard. The cheaper Synology series only have 128 mb of ram :)

    My QNAP TS-110 does run Slimserver, and because of the 256 mb of ram, it runs fast too.
    It can also act as an iTunes server, so I can rip music on my PC, and automagically transfer it to the NAS, which then automagically updates the Slimserver library.

    It also runs "sabnzbd", so i can download/repair/extract Usenet downloads, place them in the correct folder, and update the Slimserver library.

    All in all it's a perfect solution, except for the rip-tray, but I don't really care the that. I mean, wasn't the CD dying? :p

    I think the Vortexbox is a "ripoff" because they sell you an item that you can create easily yourself.
    It uses the Slimserver software, which is free to download.

    In theory, if you use an USB to Audio dongle (http://www.topmedia.nl/catalog/images/USB-AUDIO3D.jpg) you could get audio out of the QNAP. It runs Linux, so you could create some sort of driver yourself :)
    The same goes for ripping music :)

    Anyway, find the solution that fits your needs. "My" solution works fine for me :)


    EDIT:
    here you go:
    http://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=97&t=1503
    http://forum.qnap.com/viewtopic.php?f=97&t=12285
    I'll try this myself, makes it an even better device :D
  • alexsquaredalexsquared Junior Member Posts: 166
    Escient

    Looks like a press release went out this morning, but hasn't gained network attention yet. I haven't been able to get a copy of it to understand the full implications, but sounds like it affects all Escient products, not just Vision.
Sign In or Register to comment.