samlw Wrote:
Hi,
Are there plans to add native AAC support to the Squeezebox? Not the
DRM version - just plain AAC. I bought my Squeezebox expecting to be
able to have a central music library accessible by both iTunes and the
Squeezebox via SlimServer. However, I want to store the music
P Floding Wrote:
1. AAC is not lossless (normally). Does even Apple support lossless
AAC?
Lossless AAC (aka MPEG 4 ALC) is not widely used at all. Apple does not
support it AFAIK, and it is not the same as Apple Lossless.
2. My ultralight laptop, running at 500MHz, manages to
seanadams Wrote:
NAS disks often have very weak processors - just enough to move files
around. Often they're 200MHz or less, without the necessary memory /
CPU cache / ALU to run codecs. Lossless maybe, but lossy codecs can be
quite heavy unless they're tuned for the architecture.
OK,
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 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.
--
Darren
Darren's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=170
...
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
I've been following this thread and finding that it makes me
uncomfortable.
I've got a large collection of classical music and need to get a good
solution that handles the various problems of finding and playing
classical music and that solution needs to scales to more than 1500
CDs. I've been
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
Hi,
Just wanted to comment on your post about using a $1000 NAS box as a
dedicated 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 a
brand new Slimserver linux box for well under $300.
I bought from Newegg a shoebox
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
Listener Wrote:
However, I am a retired software engineer and found the enhancement
request to be wrong-headed. It does not work well for a novice to ask
for a specific enhancement without detailing his problem with the
current system. When that request is not based on a clear
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
Mitch Harding Wrote:
On 12/18/05, samlw samlw.2094dn (AT) no-mx (DOT)
forums.slimdevices.com wrote:
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),
On 18/12/05 at 11:46 -0800, samlw wrote
It could also be solved by SlimDevices if they would
license Apple Lossless and include it in their firmware.
As has been said before (many times now), at present Apple will not
licence Apple Lossless (ALAC).
--
Daniel Cohen
seanadams Wrote:
samlw,
Your situation is not typical at all - nearly everyone using AAC is on
Mac/Windows (or a linux machine capable of running faad), in which case
it simply works. I'm not sure why you keep pushing the SoundBridge
button - we are well aware that porting codecs is
Marc Sherman Wrote:
samlw wrote:
Thanks for the suggestion, but - how do I put this - Yuck!
Seriously,
maintaining a parallel tree with separate formats is just way too
inelegant to even contemplate - IMHO, it goes against everything the
Squeezebox stands for!
To be honest, that's
I run SlimServer on a slightly tweaked, dedicated PowerMac G4 Cube
running Tiger. Silent, small and fits right between components in my
audio/video setup. The only drawback is that the Cube doesn't support
internal drives over 120GB due to the IDE controller, but you can
either pull a little
I run SlimServer on a slightly tweaked, dedicated PowerMac G4 Cube
running Tiger.
I run it on a 700 MHz G3 iMac. That model was designed so it could
run entireless fanless. If you stick your ear right up to it, you
can occasionally hear the hard drive whir, but that's it.
Kevin
--
Kevin
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
Why is that your goal?
On a low-powered system, transcoding causes burps in the music and it
completely ruins the listening experience so you try to limit whatever
you can. I suppose I could upgrade the server, but I have already
invested significantly in the players. More $$$ isn't really
...
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
I don't see why this is being taken as such an absurd request by some.
Sean has certainly made clear Slim's reasons, and he makes a lot of
sense. But it it was almost a deal breaker for me when I first
purchased my Squeezebox. I bought a SB1 and a Soundbridge M1000 to
compare head to head. The
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
You are essentially forced into a lossy format unless you want to
upgrade your server.
I don't understand this. In my experience, converting to a lossy format
takes MORE horespower than to a lossless one.
is a GREAT choice in theory, but the fact is the major players (iTunes,
WMP) don't
--- 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
Although I understand that non-DRM AAC isn't proprietary - it is defined
as part of the MPEG-4 standards.
That's not to say there isn't licensing issues with AAC (just as there
is with MP3 - hence LAME) - but Roku and lots of other applications
have implemented AAC. My Sony Ericsson mobile phone
I don't understand this. In my experience, converting to a lossy
format takes MORE horespower than to a lossless one.
If your goal is to keep CPU activity to a minimum, you have to choose a
path sans transcoding. Transcoding effectively eliminates many
supported formats if it causes
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
dean Wrote:
On Dec 15, 2005, at 11:35 PM, samlw wrote:
If my music is stored as FLAC, then iTunes won't play it. And if it
is
stored as Apple Lossless, then Squeezebox won't play it.
It will, but at the cost of conversion from AAC to FLAC using
QuickTime. Have you found that this
samlw,
Your situation is not typical at all - nearly everyone using AAC is on
Mac/Windows (or a linux machine capable of running faad), in which case
it simply works. I'm not sure why you keep pushing the SoundBridge
button - we are well aware that porting codecs is possible, but I
think you
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...
-
samlw Wrote:
While a fully lossless format (ALAC) that is natively supported by both
iTunes and Squeezebox would be ideal, I would be happy with high
bit-rate AAC if it were natively supported in firmware. The Roku
SoundBridge does this, so it is clearly possible.
The SoundBridge doesn't
You don't need to install anything for AAC support as it's decoded by
quicktime. Native AAC support would really be of limited benefit (some
bandwidth savings). The roku needs AAC in firmware because they don't
have the ability to play it otherwise.
--
seanadams
AAC is supported in slimserver, you don't need to transcode to mp3, you
can transcode to wav or flac for streaming, both are lossless. I really
don't see your problem.
--
radish
radish's Profile:
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?
At any rate, what I want is a compressed lossless format like FLAC or
Apple Lossless that is natively supported by both iTunes and
Squeezebox.
seanadams Wrote:
You don't need to install anything for AAC support as it's decoded by
quicktime. Native AAC support would really be of limited benefit (some
bandwidth savings). The roku needs AAC in firmware because they don't
have the ability to play it otherwise.
Sean, the music is not
41 matches
Mail list logo
