Lost Viking;165775 Wrote:
>
> 1)
> It took more than 5 (!) hours to scan my music collection. This is
> awful! I added a few files and performed the "look for new and changed
> music" option. And it seems to take another 5 our scan to make it
> available for Squeezebox/Transporter. So in future, if I rip a new CD,
> place it on my file server, I can listen to it the next day, at the
> earliest, after having performed an overnight 5 hour scan?? :-((
>
Something is wrong if it takes that long. I have a very underpowered
system (with 128M of RAM!) that works great as a server, and can do a
full scan of 17,000 tracks in less than 30 minutes....
>
> Beside this, I don´t even understand WHY and WHAT has to be
> "scanned".... I am using my mp3 collection (RAID1 server) whithout any
> scanning and other creepy stuff. I am simply using a network share,
> double click the files & play them using Winamp. Now my music is
> scanned and re-sorted using tag information. I thought I can use
> Transporter the same way just as I did using winamp on my PC. I am
> afraid, this will not be possible :-( (correct me if I am wrong...)
>
Tags are read, a large database is filled with album names, track
names, artists, genres... so I can play all the Christmas music, or for
the next 48 weeks or so, play none of it... Especially mixed with
some of the plugins like TrackStat and DynamicPlaylist you can do nifty
things. ("Play everything I haven't listened to in the last month as
long as it isnt Christmas music")
The value of that of course depends on how good your tags are: typos
and spelling errors and inconsistent artist names will make it suck.
(Is it "Dylan"? Or "Bob Dylan" or "Dylan, Bob" or "Bobby Zimmerman"?)
>
> In other words: The by far most preferred and expected behaviour of
> Transporter would have been to take me quickly through the folders (one
> folder = one album) of my file system. After dealing with SlimServer, I
> am afraid, I am forced to accomodate this new and (from my point of
> view clumsy) way to handle music. (again, please correct me, if I am
> wrong...)
You can use Browse Music Folder from the remote... I often play music
that way.
>
> 3) Why is this software browser-based? It is laggy, takes more time to
> load than the crappiest website at the end of the world...
I go for days without touching a web browser and listen to music.
Under the Help menu is Softsqueeze... start that then kill the browser.
That will give you a fake Squeezebox (and if you change the skin, a
fake transporter) so you can see how the real one works (minus some
Java and emulation bugs anyway... but its close to the real one). No
web browser needed.
As for double clicking: you cant because why on Earth would you want to
be near a computer to listen to music. Use Winamp if you want that. If
you want to sit in a comfy chair far away from noisy fans of PCs and not
remove your ass from the chair just to change a song, then, a
Transporter or Squeezebox is what you want.
It works fine without using a web browser. Better, even, since all the
"convert this to HTML" can be pretty intensive: it is a ton of database
queries to make a web page.
How many tracks do you have? Are you using iTunes? Those can affect
scan time, as can Really Huge Directories (which are bad practice
anyway).
What parts of your network are wireless and what are wired? (Ie, it
would be very good if the connection between your server and the NAS
was wired... and very very slow if it was wireless... that is a ton of
disk accesses and network bandwidth to dump on a wireless link).
--
snarlydwarf
------------------------------------------------------------------------
snarlydwarf's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1179
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=31095
_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
