PDA

View Full Version : quick summary of 6.0 changes?



Brian Abbott, ACA Systems
2005-01-04, 09:25
On a related note, why wasn't 802.11g adopted for the SB? The small extra
cost would have been worth it ...

Steve Baumgarten wrote:
> Jack Coates wrote:
>
>> This is my opinion as well. 802.11b as a protocol and from a gear
>> quality perspective is just not there for streaming. It's great when
>> it works, but the factors that can make it not work are legion.

============
Brian Abbott

ACA Systems
============

kdf
2005-01-04, 10:37
Quoting "Brian Abbott, ACA Systems" <brian (AT) abbott (DOT) plus.com>:

> On a related note, why wasn't 802.11g adopted for the SB? The small extra
> cost would have been worth it ...

802.11g requires a faster and wider bus. It would have meant a different CPU as
well. Likely that would have been a much greater cost difference than a simple
change of pc card.

-kdf

Robin Bowes
2005-01-04, 10:50
kdf wrote:
> Quoting "Brian Abbott, ACA Systems" <brian (AT) abbott (DOT) plus.com>:
>
>
>>On a related note, why wasn't 802.11g adopted for the SB? The small extra
>>cost would have been worth it ...
>
>
> 802.11g requires a faster and wider bus. It would have meant a different CPU as
> well. Likely that would have been a much greater cost difference than a simple
> change of pc card.

I think it would be worth pointing out that the wired interface on the
SB is only 10Base-T, i.e. 10Mb/s. Wireless 11b is theoretically 11Mb/s
i.e. more than the wired port!

Both of these have more than enough bandwidth to stream raw PCM/wav to
the Squeezebox. For example:

A stereo wav file sampled at 44.1kHz (i.e. CD quality) will consist of
44,100 pairs of 16-bit samples for every second of music, so the
bit-rate required is 44,100 x 2 x 16 = 1.4Mb/s.

Both the wired and wireless interfaces of the Squeezebox have more than
enough capacity to cope with this. 11g may be a more robust protocol or
have better range but it wouldn't make any difference in terms of bandwidth.

R.

Kevin Cramer
2005-01-04, 13:08
But that is the theoretical maximum for the medium. The wired interface
can probably get very close, especially if you have a switch which
reduces the amount lost to sharing the network with other computers.

The wireless will never get that and it drops fast as you lose the
transmission strength. You are also sharing that and as far as I know
there is no way to get the benefits of a switch. Each client is taking
from the 11Mb/s pool.

I still find the wireless enough to stream FLAC though. I haven't tried
using the laptop (with a wireless connection) at the same time the
Squeezebox is playing. I keep wondering if it might be worth it to get
a cable out to the Squeezebox though. It would at least take the
wireless issue out of the equation.

Kevin

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 17:50:54 +0000, "Robin Bowes"
<robin-lists (AT) robinbowes (DOT) com> said:
> I think it would be worth pointing out that the wired interface on the
> SB is only 10Base-T, i.e. 10Mb/s. Wireless 11b is theoretically 11Mb/s
> i.e. more than the wired port!