Does anyone have any thoughts on which manufacturer offers a better digital music server device?? I'm considering the Fireball E-40 VS. the Audio ReQuest Fusion or Nitro. I know the Fireball has a better pricepoint, but the ReQuest product seems to be more robust and offers better networking capabilities.

Thanks.

Escient has only price on Request. Request has better hardware ( or will as witness new gear at CEDIA ) but the true edge is Request's software. Wheather it is that their product can be integrated easier and to better effect, their computer and computer periforal ( Palm Piolot ) interface, their ability to send VGA and/or composite video ( to make 2-way IR control possible ) or the fact that they update firmware constantly Request is a much better machine. If all you want is to listen to mp3 files on a computer there are althernatives to both products. But if you want a product that is constantly imporving, with added features from a company who listens then Request wins hands down. If you want 70 per cent for less money go with the Escient.

Alan

Wow... SPoken like someone selling against Escient.....

I sell Both Products... Heres my Objective reply...



Escient is too showing new gear at CEDIA. Only advantage Request has is ulta mega storage capability and Redundant backup when you purchase Zone units. (Which is a big selling point but costly)



Cant dissagree more here. The request software has gotten MUCH better over the years, but as far as Ease of use and frienlyness, Escient blows everyone away. They have been designing user inerface software for about 5 years longer than any other player in this market and it shows.



The PocketPC Interface is very nice and quite handy. Have not heard of Escient developing anything like this, but ya never know....


Escient outputs VGA, Composite, and S-Video SImultaneously. Whether or not the cable is hoked up when you boot the machine. Somewhat of an annoyance with Request.



Neither product has had an update in over 30 days (I'm sure they are working on some big releases for CEDIA) but before this latest lull, They were pretty close to each other as far as updates. Quite often.... Is that a Good thing??? I dunno..... Seems to me Revision changes mean there was something wrong with the previous release.




Yup.


Again.. Have to dissagree. Both companies are very responsive and constantly evolving.
And Esciet has D&M Holding behind em now. Again, not sure if thats a good thing, but they sure do have significant resources at their disposal.



It'll be 90-95% after CEDIA.

This may be an annoyance if you are unplugging the devices and changing the connections often (so annoying to us in other words).

But by eliminating the outputs you are not using they save on wasted space in the virtual memory area. This helps to keep more memory for other tasks, and also saves on processing time. (HUGE if you want many zones streaming simultaneously) Not that Escient cares about that since they don’t support this feature in the E-40

Escient will be showing the third version of the Fireball (E2) WITH the software to back the unit up. Note the software will be only for the new unit. Once that ships they will work on the backup software with the E series, then the H. Series.

Dave

This message was edited by DavidatAVX on 09/08/04 08:27 ET.

Request also has component out as well now. I'm not too familliar with Escient, so I can't bash them. But one thing I will give ReQuest props for, is the fact that they work hard at making there product easy to integrate. The built there own crestron interface and user macro, their own pronto file, and I also heard from a Xantech rep, that ReQuest is developing a program for theier new touchpanels that will let you feef the video out from the request to the touchpanel, and use it like a touchscreen interface. Their support guys are great too.

Firmware updates do not inherently stem from problems or errors. Often they mean features have been added. Let us assume you would like to store uncompressed files on a hard drive but could only store compressed files (mp3). A firmware upgrade could add this functionality. This would not be correcting an error but adding a feature.

As to hardware, the Request topology will be completely different from CEDIA onwards. Previously, all mp3 storage devices were computers with off the shelf video and audio cards and stock power supplies. The real innovation of most all of these companies had to do with the data base managment software and the OS. Request has completely reworked their hardware and it will be significantly improved.

The Escient software is not their own- or at least was not the last time I looked. It was OEMed from a company who also sold the rights to Kenwood[edit] and HP. JavaRemote is significantly superior to the Escient interface both in design and in that it resembles the touch panel interface. The Esceient GUI is based upon clip art which leaves me unispired but others find it cool.
Request added this feature when dealers ( obviously not me ) demanded that it be added ( no doubt to compete against Escient). Updates every 30 days would be indicitive of problems. Updates every 3 - 6 months indicate to me added feature set to the machine or to the integration software.

The biggest advantage to Escient, in my opinion, is that it offers one player with multiple buffered outputs so that you get one chasis with multiple players. That is a major price advantage over Request. However, have two Escients in two different locations and you must load all files into each individually. Request permits you to "sync" them via the LAN or WAN. That is superior software design in my opinion. Request is said to be adding a buffered player at CEDIA.

I do not sell against Escient any more than I sell againt Tivo or AMX. Clients purchase me not the products I sell. This is the difference between retail and coustom - or should be. In retail you demo products. In custom you demo your company. I decide what goes in to the project not the client. In the end the client will be happy with either product. I choose the products based upon a set of criteria I deem important to the long run success of my company. These factors include ease of integration, support, reliability and manufacturer response to problems, and finally functionality. In retail, functionality ( audio and video quality ) take on greater significance. I do not loose a job because I spec a Request and you can spec either. It's a non factor in my business plan. But I do choose my companies carefully or you wind up installing PHAST and dealing with the attendant problems that comes with that decision. I looked at both products and concluded that Request is the better product. I am too small to carry both and choose the product I deemed best in its category. [ added last sentance for clarity ]

Alan

This message was edited by Audible Solutionns on 09/08/04 11:30 ET.

The company Alan is talking about was OpenGlobe and they are not around any longer. Escient has all the rights to the hardware designs and the firmware.

Alan is right in that both Kenwood and CompaQ (now HP) had built designs based on the OpenGlobe spec, but both are discontinued.

BTW at CEDIA today Chris from Escient showed us the new server and IT DOES have a web-server now (WOO HOO!) Good news to guys who want the files directly.

Completely Reworked would seem to indicate Incompatable with Current Products.... I certainly hope thats not the case.


Open Globe is/was a division of Escient Convergence. It kinda got absorbed into Escient with D&M Holdings. So Yes, the software always was their own......



If the escient leaves you uninspired, then Requests must flat out depress the hell out of you. Totally utilitarian (But functional) interface. THey didnt even bother with the "Clip art" Personnally, for boxes that can easily Top 10k, I would of expected something better.




I dont think this is correct.... You have to add Clients to a Fireball for Multiple Outputs..... Separate Chasis.... But they are significantly less than Requests "ZOne" Pieces.

However, have two Escients in two different

Yes, and My clients with Large CD Collections who have Multiple homes get Request exactly for this reason. This is the Number 1 reason for moving toa Request at this point.




Bout time they bring that back.


What you sell and for what reasons really has nothing to do with this thread... Your information was/is biased against Escient for, what seems to be, no apparant reason.

You want Major Hardware Updates? Escient has Publicly released Info On the E2-300
[Link: escient.com]

The chasais is a complete redesign using superior parts that were built to spec rather than off the shelf. The build qaultiy of the unit has been improved. Consider it a major modification if you prefer, but the machine will be built with better quality parts and circuit layout. The chip set is the same however so the upgrade wil have no effect on compatability.

My last paragraph, Impaqt, on why and how I selected Request over Escent was based on the snide, gratutious swipe you took but which added no information to your response save the personal attack on me. I was not "selling" against Escient but rather giving my opinion based upon my examination of the product when I made my choice. Escient has now added a WEB server. ARQ has had this forever. Remote file managment? ARQ has it. High speed burner, yep. They are supposed to increase burning speed in a future firmware upgrade on stock burners on the player, even on older players. It seems we agree on most save on the comparative superiority of the software. You must mean that anyone who sees the world differently than you must be selling against a product- a stiltifyingly stupid comment considering where this is being read but I am sure it does make you feel better when you make those sorts of remarks. Bully for you. You might want to skip the unnecessary attacks as they add no information and serve no purpose save to belittle. But, hay, it does give you that cheap thrill, no?

Escient is not a bad player ARQ is simply better. Imerge and Arrakis are not bad players either. Improvements in many of these products have come about because Request came on the market and raised the bar. ARQ has the superior coding while I will grant that the graphics are more "snappy" on the Escient. Cool cover art and graphic design does not imporve functionality, which is what I meant when I said that the Escient interface left me limp. Sort of like a pretty woman who, once in bed, just lays there.

I do hope to run into you one day, Impacq. You may not enyoy that meeting as much however. You are one royal a**hole. You must get one major thrill hiding behind your computer making snide, personal attacks. Come out and let's see if you are as brave. It will not be hard to find me. I do not hide behind a handle.

Alan
Audible Solutions

What are you talking about? I intentionally tried to be objective and keep my comments away from personal attacks of any sorts... Where do you feel I attacked you personally? I've read through my stuff twice now and dont see it... I didnt even say anything negative about Request.... Heck, I Love request.... Its just that Escient gets a bad rap sometimes and I dont know why.....


I pointed out some mis-information in a post and your going to beat me up? Yeah, thats cool.....

I use a handle, yes, but I dont hide behind it.... ANybody who cares to find out who I am can.

I like both of you guys but man Alan, unless a post from Impaqt disappeared or was edited, I have no idea where the end of your last post is coming from.

Oh ya, I prefer Request.

....some of my best friends are Request, I just don't want my children to grow up that way....:-).

Was this comment really necessary? Does it add to anything you said after it? What was its purpose except to attack ad hominum?

You wish to tell me I am wrong? No problem. You wish to tell me I am so wrong as not to know what I am talking about and can demonstrait where I was wrong then I am all for it. Lord knows I make more than my share of mistakes and can always learn. That was the point I tried to make with respect to Randy. His reply added information I did not know and while having to respond irritated him it was useful to the community ( even if that community was, in that case, limited to one individual, me ).

But we are in the subjective relm of product evaluation. Let us assume I am so wrong with respect to the Escient software being less robust than Request? What does the above comment do to add to that discussion save to impune the person and his motives for posting. You could simply write that I am in error without the left jam, right cross combo that is contained in that barb.

I believe that Request has better source code but like most code jockeys they are not as skilled at graphics. Open Source ( thanks for the reminder ) gives the edge in this regard to Escient but an ugly button and a pretty one do the same thing in the end. Features like play now, building play lists in run time, the ability to vary the amount of indirect text for different touch panels, web server, Jovaremote, ability to run software on both PC and Mac ( one would assume this is true for Escient as their first systems required an actual Mac installed on premesis ) but when I last looked at their product ( CEDIA 2003 ) they did not offer both interfaces. Finally, many of these original server companies ( including Arrakis ) stood pat and refused to make product or firmware improvements until Request came on the scene and competition finally motivated the reluctant.


Remote system management, WAN IP maintainence, constant firmware updates that add features, not just fix errors ( but they also make mistakes ), the ability to talk to the software engineers writing the source code lead me to the conclusion that there are superior features in the Request . If Esceient has made further strides, then wounderful. I still think that the source code in Request is superior to what I have seen from Escent. If I am incorrect could you not have said so without taking a shot at me personally? Might it be possible that while I have missed some imporvements in the Escient product that Request is still better? Or if they are more like AMX and Crestron can we still not reach different conclusions as to which is better without impuning the motives behind that conclusion?

None of this has to do with "selling against " a product . If my facts are in error - and I am still not certain that the two products are equal in this respect - does that mean that my reasoning is biased or blinded by monitary necessity? Nor does it imply that I feel that Escent is a bad product. Just that Request is better.
Finally, if you read what each of us has written, and we disregard the opening jibe, we agree more than we disagree. We do not agree that Request has the superior sorce code and we do that the Escient Graphics are superior-as you would expect given what they paid for them.

Alan Brichta
Audible Solutions

Oh My...... Thats what your talking about??? I thought people around here knew me enough to know that I have an Extremely Dry sense of Humor and Forums do not transfer that very effectively. That was an off the cuff comment, that really had no intention of anyone taking personal offense.



^^^ This is a true Persoanl Attack, It was uncalled for and unecessary. I've never threatened personal Harm against anyone EVER on a open Forum. I've never flat out called anyone an a#$hole. That is just plain childish and rude. my email is in my profile. its not hard to figure out where I work. Please feel free to call me to discuss this "running into"




I also agree that Requests Source Code is indeed better for integration to AMX/Crestron. Its Faster, and give me more options as a Programmer. So we agree there as well...... All I intended to do was inform you and anyone else reading this thread that Escient has come a long way and they too are constantly improving the interface and abilities of their products.

For a $2k retail box, the Escient is a great option for someone looking for a Music server. I guess that was the point of my replies...

Impaqt