Re: [slim] PDA-controller SlimControl 0.95
Thanks for the answer. I tried again yesterday and it seems that turning wi-fi on worked fine, however can't test really until I upgrade to 7.2+. Does Slimcontrol turn it again off when done? I was probably confused by not seeing the wi-fi icon on the status bar after exiting slimcontrol. With regard to SLimserver I never upgraded as for my primary use (listening to music :-) ) it is working fine. I'll revert back as soon as I do the upgrade. Thanks. Alessandro -- Aguida Aguida's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9285 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=64537 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] USB gets all the attention!
JJZolx;445860 Wrote: > I disagree. I see _many_ threads in audiophile forums that begin > something like.. I'll defer to you, but I don't think I know too many computer-phobic baby boomers who spend time in any internet forum. Or who would buy something like a Mac mini that (I think) is neither a laptop nor a desktop with screen and keyboard. We may just each be generalizing about different "groups" of people. -- Goodsounds Goodsounds's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14201 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66342 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Slower performance with squeezebox than expected
radish;445833 Wrote: > I disagree with that last bit - I can't see why you need dual core for > SC in any circumstance, in fact seeing as most of SC is single threaded > (apart from things like transcoding) a faster-clocked single core would > be better. As it is, I run on the slowest CPU AMD make and it's just > fine for everything I throw at it. The idea of a dual core being beneficial is so that 1 core is used for the OS + any other started tasks, and SC can have another core all to itself. I take your point on higher clock speed. -- shake-the-disease Players: Boom, SB1 Server: QNAP TS-239 w/ SSOTS 3.18, SS 7.3.3, MusicIP 1.8, 7k+ tracks (formally running SS 6.3.1 on a QNAP TS-101) shake-the-disease's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=698 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66331 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] USB gets all the attention!
earwaxer;445828 Wrote: > It just seems to me that wireless has so many advantages, I cant help > but see any wired protocol as a first step in the PC as digital front > end trend, with wireless digital transmission being the goal. > > Wires have always been an overall better choice for analog > transmission. Digital lends itself to being transmitted in bit perfect > fashion over wifi. Forget about the jitter issue, and > clocking/re-clocking that plagues wired protocols. > > If I am missing something please let me know! I know wifi protocols are > "hard to get right", as has been discussed by USB DAC engineers on other > sites. Even with a Squeezebox or Transporter that can connect both wirelessly or via wired ethernet, the wired ethernet connection is sometimes the only one that many people can use due to wireless interference and/or a weak signal from their wifi router. Someone experiencing dropouts is usually directed to try a wired connection before doing anything else. This is maybe wireless music streaming's biggest drawback and is something that many people just don't ever want to deal with, so they avoid going wireless at all costs. That reason alone erases many of the advantages of running a networked player vs. a USB DAC. The other thing often mentioned is concern about RFI and it's negative impact on sound quality. I think if you're the typical audiophile and you read just one or two respected manufacturers deriding the use of wifi because of the RFI produced, then you would never even consider using it. -- JJZolx Jim JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66342 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] USB gets all the attention!
Goodsounds;445857 Wrote: > I think USB DACS are purchased by people who know more about computers > than about music/sound. Someone who "knows nothing" about PCs just uses > it as is, and doesn't tinker, add or subtract. People of my generation > who are "afraid of computers" don't use them to play music, and rarely > listen to music when using one. I disagree. I see _many_ threads in audiophile forums that begin something like: "Ok, I'm ready to try out this computer audio thing, where do I start?" These aren't people who will be downloading MP3s from the Apple Store. These are people looking #1 for good sound. Many of them are genuinely surprised by the other aspects of computer-based music: the convenience, random play, smart playlists, online music services that let them discover new artists and music. These people are often directed to the Squeezebox, Sonos, or some high end servers like those from Linn or Cambridge, but many are directed by other audiophiles toward USB DACs. A Mac Mini and a USB DAC is a common setup. The Mac Mini can be quiet enough to reside in the listening room. Use iTunes, which is simple enough for almost anyone, attach some audiophile-recommended USB DAC and you're off and running. -- JJZolx Jim JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66342 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] USB gets all the attention!
JJZolx;445838 Wrote: > I think there are several reasons for this. > > The USB DAC concept is much easier for them to grasp. Much of that > crowd is over 50, 60 years old and computers are a mystery to them. > Setting up a home network scares the hell out of them. These are guys > who quite honestly ask whether defragmenting their hard drives will make > the music sound better and believe it 100% when somebody answers 'yes'. > USB DACs are much closer to their comfort level. The computer sends the > DAC a signal and the DAC makes sound. It's a simple diagram. I'll offer a different point of view, from the vantage point of someone who I suspect is closer to the cited age range than you are ;-). I think USB DACS are purchased by people who know more about computers than about music/sound. Someone who "knows nothing" about PCs just uses it as is, and doesn't tinker, add or subtract. People of my generation who are "afraid of computers" don't use them to play music, and rarely listen to music when using one. They can buy music from the itunes store and take those tracks, together with CDs ripped by itunes, and put them on an ipod. Listen to that music in the house? Buy a radio with an ipod dock. Done. Want to listen to music on your home entertainment system? Use your CD player, or use the audio channels that come on the TV cable. The TV guy set that up when the installation was done. Most whole-house sound systems I encounter (in houses of people older than 30-something) are usually playing the residential equivalent of Muzak, off the TV cable. I've run across plenty of 20-30-40 somethings who asked for my help with a home network. And no, I'm not a techie-type. I think that is less age related than you think. -- Goodsounds Goodsounds's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=14201 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66342 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Rebuffering is ruining the Squeezebox experience
aubuti;445847 Wrote: > Unless there's another bug report I've overlooked, that doesn't give QA > much to go on. QA also have the ability (if not the resources) to create a controlled, non-ideal network test environment to test performance under repeatable network congestion conditions. The trouble with distributed random testing in the user community is that it is not repeatable or controlled, and unless something is grossly wrong, the feedback is usually ambiguous. -- dsdreamer -- "Dreamer, easy in the chair that really fits you..." dsdreamer's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12588 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=65719 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Rebuffering is ruining the Squeezebox experience
dsdreamer;445842 Wrote: > Good points all. I would hope that Logitech QA could take some actions > rather than leaving it to end users, though. Agreed, but the usual rule applies: if they can't reproduce it, they can't fix it (unless they just get lucky with "collateral improvement"). There's an open bug (13092) with a whopping *two* posts. One of the posters eliminated the rebuffering by changing his router, and the other resolved the problem by pulling ethernet cable. Unless there's another bug report I've overlooked, that doesn't give QA much to go on. -- aubuti aubuti's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2074 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=65719 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Slower performance with squeezebox than expected
shake-the-disease;445806 Wrote: > > I run a QNAP TS-239 which is really the minimim I'd recommend once you > have more than a few thousand tracks. Once over 30k or so even a single > core Atom is possibly too slow and a dual core something should be > considered. I also tried running SC on an old Buffalo NAS and it was impossibly slow. However, I now run it on a QNAP TS-219P which only has 512MB RAM compared to 1.5GB of TS-239, and the speed is actually faster than running SC off my dual core Thinkpad laptop. The rescan speed when running through the laptop was much slower, probably due to the fact that the drive is mapped through the network. The web and remote control response is also slower on the laptop, partly because the laptop is not dedicated and runs many other processes. And mostly because of the ailment of Windoze and especially Windoze Vista. So for me, the QNAP TS-219P is also acceptable. My experience with QNAP is extremely positive, built quality is superb, software is excellent, and the fan is whisper quiet. Comparatively my Thecus N299 is built with cheap plastic and the fan sounds like a old Chevette disel with a broken tailpipe. Thecus N299 also had zero firmware update since its introduction, had no spin down for hard disks, their so called support never answered my repeated email for help, not even once. Whatever you do, think twice before buying Thecus. -- agentsmith System 1: Transporter+Hi-Line RCA-DIN, Naim 202/200/Hicap+Powerline/NAPSC, Naim NAT03 tuner, CD5X, Harbeth Monitor 30 System 2: SB2 or Airport Express connected via TOSLINK to a Meridian F80 Headphone: Naim Headline+NAPSC and ancient Senn HD580 agentsmith's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1838 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66331 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Rebuffering is ruining the Squeezebox experience
aubuti;445813 Wrote: > I don't think it would be useful. First there's the obvious selection > bias: people not having problems are unlikely to read the poll and much > less likely to be in the forums in the first place. Second, what do you > do with the results? From this thread I would predict that the poll will > show a small percentage of people having the problem, selection bias > notwithstanding. Does that mean it can/should be ignored? Not at all. > Good points all. I would hope that Logitech QA could take some actions rather than leaving it to end users, though. I would -like- to develop a testbench using various access points coupled together with switchable RF attenuators, coax and some TCP/IP traffic generators made out of Linux boxes, so that I could inject controlled amounts of co-channel interference and thereby mess with the QoS of the wanted stream traffic in a known, repeatable way. Then I could gather some meaningful information about the robustness of the current generation of SB h/w and f/w. But as a private end-user with limited financial means and limited time to play, this is not something I can realistically get done. -- dsdreamer -- "Dreamer, easy in the chair that really fits you..." dsdreamer's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12588 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=65719 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] USB gets all the attention!
I think there are several reasons for this. The USB DAC concept is much easier for them to grasp. Much of that crowd is over 50, 60 years old and computers are a mystery to them. Setting up a home network scares the hell out of them. These are guys who quite honestly ask whether defragmenting their hard drives will make the music sound better and believe it 100% when somebody answers 'yes'. USB DACs are much closer to their comfort level. The computer sends the DAC a signal and the DAC makes sound. It's a simple diagram. The other big reason is that USB DACs are relatively simple to implement by the manufacturer, and require minimal or no software development. This point is critical. Development costs rise exponentially once you have to develop all the software for the device. Just ask Logitech about this and see whether they had any idea what they were getting into when they bought Slim Devices. For the typical boutique audio company consisting of a half dozen employees, this is one of only a handful of avenues into the world of computer based music. The other is the standalone system, with internal sound card, and it too is being beaten to death by a lot of characters packaging off the shelf consumer components and making grandiose claims about the sonics. -- JJZolx Jim JJZolx's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66342 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] USB gets all the attention!
_USB_IS_EASY_TO_ADOPT_ USB is now ubiquitous on computers as a wired technology, and most people already manage electronic music collections on the PCs already, whether using iTunes, Windows Media Player, WinAmp, XMMS, Foobar2k, Songbird or whatever. Given that as a starting point, people wanting improved fidelity will often take the path of least resistance and add a USB DAC and a USB cable. It's a technology people are used to using for plugging in a mouse, a digital camera or an MP3 player. People have the confidence to adopt it, even if they are technically challenged. Better still, they can keep using the same software to mange their library and avoid any new learning curve there as well. _*USB_Audio_Excellence_is_Much_More_Difficult*_ When you dig a bit deeper though, you find that most PC operating systems mess with digital audio in no-so-benign ways, and make it very hard to achieve bit-perfect reproduction to the DAC. The main issue is that of resampling of digital audio by the OS to allow many different sources of audio to mixed together in a combined audio feed to the sound card. So while USB audio is a simple proposition on the surface, audiophile USB gets to be a much more complex proposition with (Otachan's) ASIO DLLs, WASAPI for Vista, tuning the Core Audio sample rate for the MAC to the source material or application etc. _WHICH_CLOCK_IS_THE_MASTER_HERE?_ And if you care enough to avoid sample rate conversion by the PC operating system, you will also want to avoid trying to slave a good quality DAC clock to a poor quality PC clock source, which may lead to spending serious money one of Gordon Rankin's DACs that can do asynchronous-mode transfers and so avoid that pitfall. But Squeezeboxes also do asynchronous mode transfers to fill their internal buffers, and if you've invested in a Transporter you've been able to preserve the merits of that architecture all the way through the system to the analog domain (not so much if you use SPDIF output from a cheaper SB client). _ASYNCHRONOUS_TRANSFER,_BIT_PERFECT_-AND-_WIRELESS_ Added to all this you get the convenience of wireless and can keep that noisy computing equipment out of the listening room! -- dsdreamer -- "Dreamer, easy in the chair that really fits you..." dsdreamer's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12588 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66342 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Slower performance with squeezebox than expected
shake-the-disease;445806 Wrote: > > I run a QNAP TS-239 which is really the minimim I'd recommend once you > have more than a few thousand tracks. Once over 30k or so even a single > core Atom is possibly too slow and a dual core something should be > considered. I disagree with that last bit - I can't see why you need dual core for SC in any circumstance, in fact seeing as most of SC is single threaded (apart from things like transcoding) a faster-clocked single core would be better. As it is, I run on the slowest CPU AMD make and it's just fine for everything I throw at it. -- radish http://www.last.fm/user/polymeric radish's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=77 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66331 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] USB gets all the attention!
earwaxer;445828 Wrote: > > Wires have always been an overall better choice for analog > transmission. Digital lends itself to being transmitted in bit perfect > fashion over wifi. Forget about the jitter issue, and > clocking/re-clocking that plagues wired protocols. I think what you're talking about is sync vs async protocols, rather than wired vs wireless. Ethernet is jitter & reclocking free regardless of whether it's over a cable or not. But I do agree that USB seems to me a strangely sub-optimal choice. -- radish http://www.last.fm/user/polymeric radish's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=77 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66342 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[slim] USB gets all the attention!
I dont know about the rest of the wireless/ethernet PC based music server folks out there, but I am definitely feeling a huge bias in the audiophile community toward wired PC as music server connections, and by far the most popular being USB! I'm not big on conspiracy stuff, but for sure USB technologies are getting the add bucks on the various hi-fi sites and in mags. Possibly it is cheaper and easier to utilize. I'm not sure. It just seems to me that wireless has so many advantages, I cant help but see any wired protocol as a first step in the PC as digital front end trend, with wireless digital transmission being the goal. Wires have always been an overall better choice for analog transmission. Digital lends itself to being transmitted in bit perfect fashion over wifi. Forget about the jitter issue, and clocking/re-clocking that plagues wired protocols. If I am missing something please let me know! I know wifi protocols are "hard to get right", as has been discussed by USB DAC engineers on other sites. I have had the transporter now for about 2 months. I couldnt be happier! The convenience is huge. The sound is fantastic. Maybe a little analytical, but nothing that cant be cured with a bit more of the euphonics on the other end (replaced the 1st order cap in my maggies with an obligatto cap from China - and use t-amp for amplification. Cheers -- earwaxer earwaxer's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=32040 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66342 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Rebuffering is ruining the Squeezebox experience
dsdreamer;445778 Wrote: > STREAMING IN 7.3.X: > A) Has been 100% reliable with all types of local music files in my > system > B) Required network upgrades since 7.3.x to become reliable > C) Occasionally fails in 7.3.x with local FLAC files >=500kbos > D) Occasionally fails even with lossy compressed files <=320Mbps > E) Doesn't work well enough for me, so I reverted to an older SC e.g. > 7.2.x or earlier. > > Comments on whether such a poll (in a new thread) would be useful? I don't think it would be useful. First there's the obvious selection bias: people not having problems are unlikely to read the poll and much less likely to be in the forums in the first place. Second, what do you do with the results? From this thread I would predict that the poll will show a small percentage of people having the problem, selection bias notwithstanding. Does that mean it can/should be ignored? Not at all. What's needed is not a poll, because the responses from the unaffected are useless in diagnosing a problem they don't have. Instead focus on systematic diagnostics with those who have the rebuffering to isolate the problem. I have forgotten a lot of what's in this thread, but it seems that there are several cases where going from 7.3.x to 7.2.x resolved the problem. That narrows it down to a finite (large, but finite) set of possible causes. My data: currently running SC 7.3.3 on five SBs (the others are running 7.4, also without rebuffering problems). Two SBs are wired and the rest are wifi. Local library is about 95% FLAC and the rest MP3. Frequently sync'ing 2 or 3 SBs, especially for the past 2-3 months. No rebuffering problems at all. -- aubuti Nothing high-end, but music anywhere I want it, and it's '100% wind powered' (http://www.cleancurrents.com/). MSI Wind desktop (Ubuntu 8.10) feeding: Living room: SB3 > JVC JA-S44 > Vandersteen 1; Kitchen/Dining: SB2 + SBC > AudioSource Amp100 > 2 pairs Polk RC60i; Basement: Duet > Technics SA-EX140 > ESS Tempest LS8; Bedroom: Boom + SBC; Study: Duet > Klipsch ProMedia 2.0; Kid's bedroom: SB2 > Klipsch ProMedia 2.0 http://www.last.fm/user/aubuti/ aubuti's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2074 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=65719 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Controlling Squeezecentre with a Nokia phone
Unfortunately, I am not a home write now. So I cannot install and test the Symbian dev environment just yet. -- Locuth Use your PDA as SqueezeBox remote -- http://www.sciatec.de/SlimControl Locuth's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=29693 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=59033 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Controlling Squeezecentre with a Nokia phone
Locuth;66 Wrote: > > If it is do-able, we are talking 4 to 6 weeks. Hi Sebastian, did you work out if it's possible on Symbian? -- dave77 dave77's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=26269 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=59033 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Squeezebox Headset
Why can't you just connect some wireless headphones to your Squeezebox? I use these: http://www.amazon.com/Sennheiser-RS120-Wireless-Headphones-Charging/ Except for being a bit to big for my head (no headbanging), I like them pretty well. There is a bit of interference if I am walking around the house with them on, but mostly I can tune them in without interference staying in the same general area. -- MeSue Sue http://www.last.fm/user/MeSue MeSue's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=985 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66335 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Slower performance with squeezebox than expected
l.vervae...@telenet.be;445744 Wrote: > > > What else is there to speed things up? > Thinking of: > 1. creating folders A to Z so the artists are no longer in one folder. > = Would this help alot or not? > 2. add memory to readynas duo to for example 1GB. > = Some people say this doesn't help because the cpu is botteneck > here. > 3. change settings in the my.sql file but I'm not a mysql user. > = any thoughts on that? > 4. wait for the squeezecenter 8 to run sqlite. > = any tests on performance yet? > 5. buy another NAS > = any recommandations? > > Any help is very much appreciated and if you have questions about > installing and stuff I can help (only got the duet for 3 days so no hard > questions yet...) Of that list #1 is definitely worth trying. What you're coming up against is that teh ReadyNAS Duo is hopelessly underpowered for running Squeezecenter at a performance level expected by most people. *Bottom line, the CPU in that NAS is too slow. End of story.* You can tweak and tune, but in the end you are polishing a turd. I've run SC on a slow NAS in the past and it's no fun. My rule of thumb is that is if take your server/NAS more than 1hr to do a full scan of your music library, your server/NAS is not up to the job. This is not because the scan itself is a major issue, it's because the scan is a great indicator as to the size of your library vs. the CPU speed of your server. If either push your server over a 1hr full scan it's time for a new server. I run a QNAP TS-239 which is really the minimim I'd recommend once you have more than a few thousand tracks. Once over 30k or so even an Atom is possible too slow and a C2D should be considered. -- shake-the-disease Players: Boom, SB1 Server: QNAP TS-239 w/ SSOTS 3.18, SS 7.3.3, MusicIP 1.8, 7k+ tracks (formally running SS 6.3.1 on a QNAP TS-101) shake-the-disease's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=698 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66331 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] PDA-controller SlimControl 0.95
Aguida;445608 Wrote: > Hi. It looks a great application. Really what I was looking for. I have > a couple of questions. > > 1. I tested on my htc touch pro. At start it says that it is turning > the wi-fi on, then it says it has done so, but wi-fi is still off. Not a > big deal since I can turn it on manually before I start the program, but > I thought I would report it. > > 2. I can connect to the server but it does not list any player (I have > a Squeezebox classic). Does it require a specific version of slimserver? > I am still runnning a version 6.x as that works fine and I am not crazy > just to upgrade if there is no reason to it. > > Thanks a lot. Thanks for the feeback Aquida I recommend upgrading. I started this project in spring this year (using v.7.2) and haven't yet bothered to support older server versions. Concerning the Wifi issue: If you decide to upgrade, you could be of great help if you sent me a logfile. 1. In SlimControl->Settings set the log-level to 2. 2. Restart SlimControl (with WiFi turned off) 3. then, after 15 seconds or so, terminate the app 4. Copy the logfile from the application folder xxx.log (I don't recall the logfile name) 5. reset log level to 1 or 0. Sebastian -- Locuth Use your PDA as SqueezeBox remote -- http://www.sciatec.de/SlimControl Locuth's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=29693 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=64537 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] DSBridge - A simpler way to stream Spotify
frisk;445537 Wrote: > The installation procedure looked simple enough but I can't get it to > work, perhaps someone can help me. > > When starting spotify, dsbridge fires up and a blue dot appears in the > task bar with hoover text "dsbridge, HttpServer. http://localhost:8124/ > > If I add a favourite http://192.168.1.4:8124 (I am certain of the ip) > and click on it, the blue dot turns green but unfortunately for me, no > music through my SB. Also, the music in my computers speakers also > dissapears at this point. Squeezecenter complains, after some time, > "(Error on HTTP socket: Bad file descriptor)". > > It seems that something is streamed though. I tried directing my web > reader at http://192.168.1.4:8124 and I got music through some quick > time plugin. > > Any thoughts or suggestions what to do? I use lame_end.cll version > 3.98.2 and I have not modified dsbridge.ini I've also have this problem from time to time... Usually it helps to restart spotify but after a day or so the problem comes back...? For now, try to restart spotify (exit from the spotify icon in the systray and then start it again...) /Per -- peber peber's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=31446 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=64590 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[slim] Squeezebox Headset
Please Please Please. I hope logitech is listening... I think there needs to be a logitech Squeezebox Headset. Just like the duet controller works as a receiver have a headset that works as a receiver. As far as I know there arent any reasonably priced WiFi/Network headphones. (correct me if I'm wrong) this would fit the bill. Not everyone in my house wants to listen to squeezebox all the time I do. -- jplatt08 jplatt08's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=24123 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66335 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Slower performance with squeezebox than expected
VIA boards make excellent and cheap servers. Can't really beat a C7 on price and power usage. Yes its not as low power as a NAS but at last it has enough horse power to do other things. Mine has 4x250GB in raid5 (will update to 4x1TB soon), samba, appletalk, printing, itunes serving, ... and of course squeezecenter. NAS boxes, IMO, are overrated. 15min for 10k tracks on my box. Lawrence -- Aslak3 Aslak3's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=31977 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66331 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] My personal thoughts on Squeezebox concept.
YanniG;445473 Wrote: > Finally, after a long trip my new Squeezebox arrived at home. > I thought I had to inform you all here about my process. > After unpacking it, it tool me two minutes to set it up playing...It > showed me its pin, so I updated my account on squeezenetwork with this > new player and I even turned off my Vortexbox and Squeezebox rocks my > world... > Thank you for such a great product. > It really ROCKS ! ! ! AND it goes to 11!! -- Sike Sike's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2458 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=65198 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Rebuffering is ruining the Squeezebox experience
Schindler;445739 Wrote: > Hello > > I have a Transporter, a Classic and two Booms running different flac > files over WiFi at the same time without any problem... > > Christian No one denies that this system -can- work very well, and probably in most installations it still does. But you don't even tell us what version of SC you using without issues or whether you are using wireless or wired, so I don't know that I feel much the wiser after your post! If we really want to gather meaningful data, we should start a poll and try to have it made sticky. E.g. STREAMING IN 7.3.X: A) Has been 100% reliable with all types of local music files in my system B) Required network upgrades since 7.3.x to become reliable C) Occasionally fails in 7.3.x with local FLAC files >=500kbos D) Occasionally fails even with lossy compressed files <=320Mbps E) Doesn't work well enough for me, so I reverted to an older SC e.g. 7.2.x or earlier. Comments on whether such a poll (in a new thread) would be useful? -- dsdreamer -- "Dreamer, easy in the chair that really fits you..." dsdreamer's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12588 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=65719 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Slower performance with squeezebox than expected
The performance of Browse Music Folder will always be related to the number of items in the folder, so yes, reducing that will help. However, as signor_rossi mentioned, you're missing out if you're only using BMF. The whole point of the scan is to populate the db so you can browse/search it instead of the filesystem. That should be _much_ faster than BMF, particularly with large directories. As for scan time, yes it's slow on an (average) NAS. There's no magic bullet to improve that, but for tips/suggestions ask in the 3rd Party Hardware forum. When sqlite and the new scanner are in place things will be better (people were seeing maybe 30% improvement during testing) but that could be a way off. What I (and many others) do is just not use a NAS. A small PC is cheaper & (much) faster than a dedicated NAS, and doesn't have to use much more power. It takes my $100 server <20 mins to scan 20k tracks. -- radish http://www.last.fm/user/polymeric radish's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=77 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66331 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] PDA-controller SlimControl 0.95
Aguida;445620 Wrote: > the same: 0.95 For Users that like to upgrade their old PDAwith windows 6.5. I did bought aHTC Blue Angel shortly for just 30 Euro, and i saw AES encription is not inside the Win Mobile 2003. So my thinking to upgrade the ROM to 6.0 was full in hope there will be a AES encription include, was not so i did another Upgrade to V6.5. Is someone familiar how to get old WM PDA's a AES encription? Anyways Slimcontrol will work also under 6.5 WM. This i did test. -- arztde arztde's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=29528 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=64537 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Net::UDAP - SqueezeBox Receiver configuration tool
Robin Bowes;445630 Wrote: > On 04/08/09 05:18, daviseh wrote: > > I am having a problem figuring this out. I have a wired setup with > the > > following specs > > > > IP Address = 192.168.0.105 > > Gateway = 192.168.0.1 > > Squeezecenter address=192.168.105 > > > > So I reset the SBR and entered the following: > > > > discover > > conf 1 > > set interface=0 lan_ip_mode=0 lan_gateway=192.168.0.1 > > lan_network_address=?? lan_subnet_mask=255.255.255.0 > > primary_dns=192.168.0.1 squeezecenter_address=192.168.0.105 > > save_data > > reset > > > > I assumed that the lan_network_address became the static IP. Is this > > correct? If not, how do you assign a static IP address? > > According to the docs, interface=0 means wireless; try interface=1 > > R. Thanks Robin. I changed interface from 0 to 1 and I was able to use iPeng to connect to Squeezenetwork. When I log into squeezenetwork the player is there. However, squeezecenter does not find the player and I can not connect to squeezecneter from iPeng. So I guess I still have some settings wrong. Any ideas? Ed -- daviseh daviseh's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=8828 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=57861 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Slower performance with squeezebox than expected
First thing that comes to my mind, since you have one big directory with subdirectories for all artists, why do you use 'Browse Music Folder' at all? Browse through your music with 'Library - Artist' instead, that's what the scan at the beginning is for. :) signorRossi. -- signor_rossi signor_rossi's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=11941 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66331 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Rebuffering is ruining the Squeezebox experience
Hello I have a Transporter, a Classic and two Booms running different flac files over WiFi at the same time without any problem... Christian -- Schindler Schindler's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=8461 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=65719 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] All but my Classic
I connected the box directly to the ethernet port on my iMac (which is connected to the home network) and shared the internet access, and I got the Squeezecenter running that way. -- foffster foffster's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=31944 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66101 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] All but my Classic
See if the homeowner will let you try to temporarily connect it directly to his router via ethernet cable. That would just be a test to sort out whether or not the problem is with the WiFi. -- TiredLegs TiredLegs's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=6201 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66101 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[slim] squeezecenter 7.3.3 flac troubles
I've updated my windows home server to squeezcenter 7.3.3. but when i wan't to play some FLAC (original AC3) the SB says that it runs out of memory ? The flac are 5.1 flac, when i test this flac on a PC with for example foobar everyting is working fine . Somebody with the some problem, or a solution ? -- the cosmic gate the cosmic gate's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17072 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66329 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
[slim] Off Topic - Large basement - audio options
My brother just had his basement redone and it's in a very large U shape. He plans on putting a surround sound/home theater somewhat in the middle. At one end there's a bar, and at the other end a a big pool table area. He'd like to put speakers in the bar area, and another pair in the pool table area. He doesn't want to play different sources in the respective areas, but would like local volume control in the bar and pool table area that is fed from the home theater setup. Other than the old school way of putting L-pad speaker fed controls in those respective areas, what are some other ways of doing this? At this point he doesn't have a Squeezebox, etc. Everything is on CD - 1000+. Another idea I had is, do some home theater receivers have additional zone feeds that could have the volume controlled independently to these zones? Just looking for opinions for anyone that might have done something similar, equipment used, etc. Thanks! -- Kurt Kurt's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2153 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66328 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Rebuffering is ruining the Squeezebox experience
DigitalMitch;445679 Wrote: > Other than voting for the bug and implementing a ethernet over power, is > there anything else I should be trying? Surely you have a friend that has either a laptop, USB/PCI wireless adapter, Smartphone with wifi, or some other device that you could use (invite them over for beer or something) to do some wireless investigation with? -- funkstar my collection: *1*x boom *2*x controller, *1*x receiver *2*x sb3 (sliver/black, *1*x sb2 wired (silver), *1*x sb (black) *1*x slimp3 (with rear shield) interested in any others if you have them! funkstar's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2335 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=65719 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] DSBridge - A simpler way to stream Spotify
Just wanted to add my thanks to chp for a great job. Also vagskal for instructions even I could follow and gazjam for adding the final clue to substitute ip address for local host. They finally got me there, the final step in a system that does all I require of it. Mike -- noguru noguru's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=27520 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=64590 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Rebuffering is ruining the Squeezebox experience
I've been suffering rebuffering for a while now, after a couple of years of stable performance, and I'm fed up so I'm trying to take action. I've ordered some more ethernet over power (Netgears HDX101) which successfully stream video to PS3 (which had been unstable over wi-fi), but until they arrive I'm stuck. I can't run Netstumbler to review my wi-fi as both my p.c. and server (HP MediaSmart) are hard-wired with no wifi capability. Looking at network test on my furthest player and signal strength is good (avergae 76 minimum 62) but buffer fullness drops at start of tracks. My suspicion (with no real data) is that 4 players streaming synchronised FLAC is using too much of the avaiable wifi bandwidth and that when coupled with some other uncapturable event (neighbours microwave ??) causes the rebuffering. I rule out server speed as the server does nothing but SqueezeCenter and MusicIP. I guess 7.3.3 is either not as robust at handling this (the rebuffering error message didn't use to exist) or has increased traffic to handle the improved sync and exacrebated a problem. Other than voting for the bug and implementing a ethernet over power, is there anything else I should be trying? Ethernet over power may fix this for me, but may not, and even if it does the root cause is then left unaddressed and may cause problems for others. -- DigitalMitch DigitalMitch's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=15999 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=65719 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Popcorn hour C-200
;) all very true, I just like to argue... I don't want to become restrictive, i'd actually quite like an open discussion of all the possibilities of the C-200 combined with the SB, including squeezeplay, so long as people keep an eye on the ball from time to time. =) -- Gibbo Gibbo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12331 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66276 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Popcorn hour C-200
Gibbo wrote: > Obviously peter this solution isn't one for everyone. > > But if I already own a home PC, 2 SB's and am going to buy a C-200 then > this solution would be perfect for me. > > I do see your point about squeezeplay, and that would be better for > you, and if I had a low power server it would also be a good solution > for me, but I don't and I don't want to shell out for one. > > Any chance we can keep this on topic and maybe answer the question as > to if it's possible rather than argue about what is best? > I have no problems if you keep on your topic while I embark on mine ;) If you suddenly want to become restrictive you might like to change the topic title in something like: Squeezecenter on the Popcorn hour C-200 (and not squeezeplay). Just to avoid confusion ;) You might be interested to know that Logitech staff have declared everything on topic in this forum. Even politics ;) Regards, Peter ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Net::UDAP - SqueezeBox Receiver configuration tool
On 04/08/09 05:18, daviseh wrote: > I am having a problem figuring this out. I have a wired setup with the > following specs > > IP Address = 192.168.0.105 > Gateway = 192.168.0.1 > Squeezecenter address=192.168.105 > > So I reset the SBR and entered the following: > > discover > conf 1 > set interface=0 lan_ip_mode=0 lan_gateway=192.168.0.1 > lan_network_address=?? lan_subnet_mask=255.255.255.0 > primary_dns=192.168.0.1 squeezecenter_address=192.168.0.105 > save_data > reset > > I assumed that the lan_network_address became the static IP. Is this > correct? If not, how do you assign a static IP address? According to the docs, interface=0 means wireless; try interface=1 R. ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Popcorn hour C-200
Obviously peter this solution isn't one for everyone. But if I already own a home PC, 2 SB's and am going to buy a C-200 then this solution would be perfect for me. I do see your point about squeezeplay, and that would be better for you, and if I had a low power server it would also be a good solution for me, but I don't and I don't want to shell out for one. Any chance we can keep this on topic and maybe answer the question as to if it's possible rather than argue about what is best? -- Gibbo Gibbo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12331 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66276 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Popcorn hour C-200
Gibbo wrote: > How would that be better? People have actually created squeezeplay style > programs for the A series popcorns. It'd be nice I grant you that... > 1. It would be better because that way I'd have one less device in my living room. Since my house is equiped with a 24/7 server I have no use for SC on an NMT. Where is that squeezeplay-style software on the NMT, I don't believe there is any. Oh yes, you can show what you're playing on the TV but I don't want that, I'd want the NMT to play the music controlled with an SBC. When I play music the TV is off. > What we are looking for is full control that means the home PC doesn't > need to be turned on to play music. I don't own a NAS and don't see the > point in me buying one. I'm confused by people expense arguments here? > The C-200 is $299, the QNAP 239 pro for example is over $520... > Who needs a home PC when they have a home server? > I understand that the C-200 may not be as powerful as a QNAP 239, but > it also does a lot more so much so that I will probably be buying one > anyway. This would just be a real big bonus, and essentially a free one. > I believe the problem is that the NMT people prefer to keep the system closed. > The cost of a C-200 and a lot of HDD space would cost about the same as > a bare QNAP with no drives, plus if it can do the same job as the NAS > just with the added feature of being a fully functioning Blu ray player > and media player that'll play anything you throw at it then the choice > is a no brainer for me, not for everyone, but for me. > > I'd never stump up the money for a NAS if I'm honest, I don't see the > point, rather than spending $500 i'd rather just wait those 30seconds > for my PC to boot up after a WoL, but if teh C-200 can do it, then wooo! > Life's to short for waiting ;) Regards, Peter ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] PDA-controller SlimControl 0.95
the same: 0.95 -- Aguida Aguida's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9285 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=64537 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] PDA-controller SlimControl 0.95
Aguida;445608 Wrote: > > 1. I tested on my htc touch pro. At start it says that it is turning > the wi-fi on, then it says it has done so, but wi-fi is still off. Not a > big deal since I can turn it on manually before I start the program, but > I thought I would report it. > Hi Aguida I've got an HTC Touch Pro as well and SlimControl is able to turn the WiFi on and off without issue. What version of Slimcontrol are you using? I'm using 0.95. -- Stoker --ian Stoker's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=8264 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=64537 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Popcorn hour C-200
How would that be better? People have actually created squeezeplay style programs for the A series popcorns. It'd be nice I grant you that... What we are looking for is full control that means the home PC doesn't need to be turned on to play music. I don't own a NAS and don't see the point in me buying one. I'm confused by people expense arguments here? The C-200 is $299, the QNAP 239 pro for example is over $520... I understand that the C-200 may not be as powerful as a QNAP 239, but it also does a lot more so much so that I will probably be buying one anyway. This would just be a real big bonus, and essentially a free one. The cost of a C-200 and a lot of HDD space would cost about the same as a bare QNAP with no drives, plus if it can do the same job as the NAS just with the added feature of being a fully functioning Blu ray player and media player that'll play anything you throw at it then the choice is a no brainer for me, not for everyone, but for me. I'd never stump up the money for a NAS if I'm honest, I don't see the point, rather than spending $500 i'd rather just wait those 30seconds for my PC to boot up after a WoL, but if teh C-200 can do it, then wooo! -- Gibbo Gibbo's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12331 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=66276 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] lossless internet radio streaming in FLAC!
Yes, they are very good. -- Labarum Brian Squeezebox 3 Classic and Virgin Cable Box Beresford DAC TC-7520SE (Caiman) - Quad 405-2 refurbished by 405man Quart 980s Speakers Boom in kitchen. Labarum's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=19963 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=65553 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Popcorn hour C-200
Gibbo wrote: > I'm intrigued, what are the chances of SC being able to run on the > 'C-200' > (http://www.popcornhour.com/onlinestore/index.php?pluginoption=productspec&item_id=12)? > They have a new model, cool... > It'd make my year if it were possible. > Naah, get squeezeplay to run on it. That would be so much better! X. ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] lossless internet radio streaming in FLAC!
Just wanted to say that the station's (D-Dur) homepage has a fantastic free flac download offer of the 6 Brandenburg Concertos by Musica Florea. They sound fantastic. http://www.rozhlas.cz/d-dur/english Will vote for the bug as soon as my Bugzilla account is created. -- ian_heys ian_heys's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2629 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=65553 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] PDA-controller SlimControl 0.95
Hi. It looks a great application. Really what I was looking for. I have a couple of questions. 1. I tested on my htc touch pro. At start it says that it is turning the wi-fi on, then it says it has done so, but wi-fi is still off. Not a big deal since I can turn it on manually before I start the program, but I thought I would report it. 2. I can connect to the server but it does not list any player (I have a Squeezebox classic). Does it require a specific version of slimserver? I am still runnning a version 6.x as that works fine and I am not crazy just to upgrade if there is no reason to it. Thanks a lot. -- Aguida Aguida's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=9285 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=64537 ___ discuss mailing list discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/discuss
