And I feel that I was quite clear in describing the problem I would like to
see solved,
namely:
A WAY TO HAVE A SINGLE CENTRALIZED LIBRARY OF MY DIGITAL MUSIC IN A
SINGLE HIGH-QUALITY COMPRESSED (BOTH ON DISK AND OVER-THE-WIRE)
FORMAT (PREFERABLY LOSSSLESS, DEFINITELY NOT MP3), THAT LIVES
Maybe you should support the request for native DRMed AAC playback in
the SB. That's something that can't be done today even with
transcoding, would make the iTMS crowd happy and gett you your AAC
support to boot. It's all in the wording.
C.
___
Discuss
Darren wrote:
I for one, would like to see native AAC support. Not for the increased
performance, but the ability to fast forward or rewind through a song.
So in fact, what you'd like to see is the ability to FF or REW through
AAC songs. This could be implemented without native AAC support.
samlw wrote:
I think high-bitrate MP3 is the way I will have to go. In my
experience, AAC sounds better and compresses better than MP3 at a given
bitrate. So I have a personal preference for AAC over MP3.
(Assuming you're happy with lossy...) As you climb the bitrate ladder,
at some point
...
I'm not sure what the harshness towards 'average users' is all about.
While Slimserver and Squeezebox are wonderful and have a fantastic
number of options, it does sometimes seem that ease of use and
simplicity take a back seat. Again, only going by my experience, but
I've had the SB2 for
I'm not sure what the harshness towards 'average users' is all about.
No, average users are fine :) It's just that generalisations like
the average user this, the average user that serve no purpose when
arguing a point. There is no such person as the average user, even if
there were we couldn't
On 12/18/05, Listener [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Slimdevices needs to give clear specs and clear documentation aboutrunningSlimserver on a NAS box to avoid confusion and customerdisappointment.I've never seen SlimDevices actually recommend using a NAS -- let alone specific hardware. There are plenty
On 12/18/05, ctbarker32 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,Just wanted to comment on your post about using a $1000 NAS box as adedicated Slimserver. In my experience, you don't need to spend
anywhere near that amount. I'm a brand new SB3 owner and I just built abrand new Slimserver linux box for well
On 12/18/05, samlw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A WAY TO HAVE A SINGLE CENTRALIZED LIBRARY OF MY DIGITAL MUSIC IN ASINGLE HIGH-QUALITY COMPRESSED (BOTH ON DISK AND OVER-THE-WIRE) FORMAT(PREFERABLY LOSSSLESS, DEFINITELY NOT MP3), THAT LIVES ON A LOW-POWER
LINUX BOX, AND THAT CAN BE ACCESSED AND PLAYED
If your goal is to keep CPU activity to a minimum,
Why is that your goal? Slimserver's CPU requirements are
next-to-nothing when it's not rescanning. Disk performance is much
more of a problem, especially if it is not the only process requiring
disk access on the host.
you have to choose a
...
Most average users likely use WMP or iTunes. The lossless choices
are WMA or M4P. I think if you asked an average user what FLAC was,
they'd have no idea and probably not care. If FLAC is ever supported
by WMP/iTunes, it will become a major format, but I won't hold my
breath.
Lemme
On a low-powered system, transcoding causes burps in the music.
I cannot begin to imagine how low-powered this system would have to
be. A flakey wireless connection, maybe. A slow disk with some other
concurrent accesses, maybe. Not the transcoding. Both FLAC and AAC run
fine on battery-powered
On 12/17/05, Ben [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry about the threadjack there, but it was just a bit discouraging tosee a couple of posts with folks disparaging 'average users' who may notlive and breath this stuff and want to spend every waking moment
fiddling with it...So what you're trying to say
--- samlw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, perhaps I made an invalid assumption. I assumed Apple Lossless
was just a lossless variant of AAC. Don't they both have the same
file extension?
the file extension is for the container format, not the codec format
inside. AAC and apple lossless are
On Dec 15, 2005, at 11:35 PM, samlw wrote:
Sorry, perhaps I made an invalid assumption. I assumed Apple Lossless
was just a lossless variant of AAC. Don't they both have the same file
extension?
They are completely different codecs, but use the same wrapper, which
is based on the QuickTime
On 12/16/05, seanadams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW if you ever need to use ANY lossless format (Flac, Apple, WMA) or
any non-mainstream/emerging format, you will be very glad you chose
Squeezebox. :)
For more reasons than one, considering the AC'97 chip in the Tubular
Music Player...
-
16 matches
Mail list logo
