PDA

View Full Version : OGG VORBIS Support in Firmware



Jason
2005-03-15, 15:04
Why on earth would Slim give a damn if Slim server was included in mainline
Linux distributions? Do you really think that the inclusion of Slim Server
software is going to sell extra Squeezeboxes?

Actually there is no reason Slim Server cannot be included in a core
distribution as it is, they do not include LAME in the basic configuration,
it's up to the user to install and configure LAME. If the streaming is all
done by PCM/WAV or FLAC then there are no patents involved.

All of which doesn't shed any light on why they should implement Ogg support
in firwmare.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
> [mailto:discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com] On Behalf Of
> Michael Peters
> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:40 PM
> To: Slim Devices Discussion
> Subject: [slim] OGG VORBIS Support in Firmware
>
> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:31:06 +0100, Christian Pernegger
> <pernegger (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Wait a minute, didn't you just bash mp3 halfway around the list
> > because it was patent encumbered? Yet you consider AAC? I
> just don't get you...
>
> I didn't bash mp3.
> It is a very good lossy codec.
> mp3 (and aac) will never be in the mainline Fedora
> distribution because they do require licenses to distribute
> encoders/decoders for.
>
> I use patented software, no doubt about it - but I don't
> expect it to be in the distribution, I get that elsewhere and
> install it myself.
>
> AAC is a very nice encoding format, probably better than ogg
> (I haven't done any listening tests, but I was very impressed
> with 128kbps encodes from iTunes/QuickTime)
>
> I'm not bashing mp3 for patent issues, I am stating point
> blank that the patent issues are in fact a problem for
> SlimServer ever being included in Fedora/Red Hat mainline
> distribution - unless their also is a lossy choice that
> doesn't have the patent issues (and that's ogg)
>
> I personally wouldn't mind paying for Fedora for it to come
> with mp3 support - I'm not against a technology just because
> their are patents.
>
> --
> http://mpeters.us/
>

Daryle A. Tilroe
2005-03-15, 15:11
Jason wrote:

> Why on earth would Slim give a damn if Slim server was included in mainline
> Linux distributions? Do you really think that the inclusion of Slim Server
> software is going to sell extra Squeezeboxes?

While I may not think that native OGG in the firmware is much of
a priority it certainly would not hurt to have Slimserver be included
in a distro.

> Actually there is no reason Slim Server cannot be included in a core
> distribution as it is, they do not include LAME in the basic configuration,
> it's up to the user to install and configure LAME. If the streaming is all
> done by PCM/WAV or FLAC then there are no patents involved.

And, as was pointed out, you can stream your existing MP3s just fine.
Finally, if you are running Linux and cannot somehow install LAME then
you have other problems. ;-)

--
Daryle A. Tilroe

Michael Peters
2005-03-15, 15:13
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:11:02 -0700, Daryle A. Tilroe
<daryle (AT) micralyne (DOT) com> wrote:

>
> And, as was pointed out, you can stream your existing MP3s just fine.
> Finally, if you are running Linux and cannot somehow install LAME then
> you have other problems. ;-)

Those that seem to be against this have stated that they don't want to
re-encode all their music (even though that wouldn't be required, no
one suggested dropping mp3 support) - and now it is suggested that
people with ogg should re-encode and change what format they prefer in
order to get lossy streaming?

Strange world.

--
http://mpeters.us/

Michael Peters
2005-03-15, 15:51
Just so there is some clarity on the subject, here is where I am
coming from completely.

I am working on an rpm spec file for inclusion of SlimServer in rpm.livna.org

rpm.livna.org is a yum repository for packages that can not be
included in Fedora Core or Fedora Extras because of patent issues.

To get SlimServer into rpm.livna.org there are several things I need
to do - some of it is done.
The ~/Bin stuff has to go, that's done - Fedora already provides a
lame binary and an oggdec binary. I have an rpm spec file that works
(at least for me) for Apple's mDNSResponderPosix. I don't have an rpm
yet for mppdec because it fails to compile for me, probably a trivial
patch - but no sense working on it now because FC4 will ship with a
new version of gcc - so it would be better to patch the mpp stuff to
that gcc.

The other issue is the CPAN/arch stuff.
It looks to me by reading the slimserver perl script that SlimServer
is dependent upon specific versions - not an issue, I can make a
slimserver-perl package src.rpm that builds those specific versions
and installs them into CPAN/arch

I hope to have this ready for inclusion in rpm.livna.org for FC4
release date in June.
It probably would not be in rpm.livna.org until some time after, as
the packages have to go through a QA process. But when it is done, a
Fedora User will simply need to add the rpm.livna.org repositories,
and they can then install slimserver by running

yum install slimserver

The server and any dependencies would just be pulled in, and the user
would ready to point their browser to port 9000 and be done. Updates
that fix bugs, bugs either fixed by slimdevices - or bugs fixed by the
Fedora Community - would automatically be pushed to users when the
rpms are updated on the rpm.livna.org server.

If there was a lossy way of streaming that did not use a patented
technology, it would be possible to get slimserver into Fedora Extras.
I don't know what the patent status is on the mpp stuff - or if it can
run without it (I suspect), that may have to remain in livna (like the
gstreamer plugin for mp3 is in livna even though gstreamer-plugins are
in core)

I also do not know about Apple's mDNSResponderPosix.
That product actually looks like it could be useful for a LOT of
different things in Fedora, it is open source - and Apple does permit
grant to use without a license - so it may not take much at all to get
it into Fedora Extras.

slimserver itself though I don't think will be able to go into extras
unless it would be useful to people who do not use music files created
with an encoder that has patent distribution issues. SlimServer works
fine with ogg now, but only if streamed lossless or if transcoded to
mp3.

Lossless streaming of ogg files as PCM or FLAC is not attractive to
the Fedora Extras community, and transcoding to mp3 would require
lame.

Slimserver could be patched by the OSS to stream ogg, but such a patch
would not work with a Squeezebox unless the Squeezebox could do
something with that ogg stream.

Starting with Fedora Core 4, Fedora Extras will be enabled by default
on a users machine. The goal for Fedora is that by FC5, a user can
install stuff from Extras that they want at the time that they
install.

Having SlimServer in Fedora Extras thus means that all a Fedora user
would have to do is run "yum install slimserver" and they are good to
go. Slick, easy, trouble free installation - with a support backend to
push updates through when available every time the user runs "yum
update" on their system.

Such ease of installation/maintenance means more users of SlimServer,
even if they are not all users of SqueezeBox itself - more users of
the server potentially means more issues being resolved in a timely
manner (it's an open source project) which means a better product for
buyers of the product on ANY platform.

That's where I'm coming from - that's what oggdec on the SqueezeBox
firmware would potentially do.

--
http://mpeters.us/

Gerald B. Cox
2005-03-15, 16:27
Hey, I think that is excellent. I sent in a request to SLIMDEVICES to
have OGG
added to the firmware as I mentioned in a previous post. As a side note,
I'm surprised by the negative attitude of a few people regarding the adding of
this feature. I don't use FLAC currently, don't have any plans, but I
think it
is great the support has been added.

Quoting Michael Peters <funkyres (AT) gmail (DOT) com>:

> Just so there is some clarity on the subject, here is where I am
> coming from completely.
>
> I am working on an rpm spec file for inclusion of SlimServer in rpm.livna.org
>
> rpm.livna.org is a yum repository for packages that can not be
> included in Fedora Core or Fedora Extras because of patent issues.
>
> To get SlimServer into rpm.livna.org there are several things I need
> to do - some of it is done.
> The ~/Bin stuff has to go, that's done - Fedora already provides a
> lame binary and an oggdec binary. I have an rpm spec file that works
> (at least for me) for Apple's mDNSResponderPosix. I don't have an rpm
> yet for mppdec because it fails to compile for me, probably a trivial
> patch - but no sense working on it now because FC4 will ship with a
> new version of gcc - so it would be better to patch the mpp stuff to
> that gcc.
>
> The other issue is the CPAN/arch stuff.
> It looks to me by reading the slimserver perl script that SlimServer
> is dependent upon specific versions - not an issue, I can make a
> slimserver-perl package src.rpm that builds those specific versions
> and installs them into CPAN/arch
>
> I hope to have this ready for inclusion in rpm.livna.org for FC4
> release date in June.
> It probably would not be in rpm.livna.org until some time after, as
> the packages have to go through a QA process. But when it is done, a
> Fedora User will simply need to add the rpm.livna.org repositories,
> and they can then install slimserver by running
>
> yum install slimserver
>
> The server and any dependencies would just be pulled in, and the user
> would ready to point their browser to port 9000 and be done. Updates
> that fix bugs, bugs either fixed by slimdevices - or bugs fixed by the
> Fedora Community - would automatically be pushed to users when the
> rpms are updated on the rpm.livna.org server.
>
> If there was a lossy way of streaming that did not use a patented
> technology, it would be possible to get slimserver into Fedora Extras.
> I don't know what the patent status is on the mpp stuff - or if it can
> run without it (I suspect), that may have to remain in livna (like the
> gstreamer plugin for mp3 is in livna even though gstreamer-plugins are
> in core)
>
> I also do not know about Apple's mDNSResponderPosix.
> That product actually looks like it could be useful for a LOT of
> different things in Fedora, it is open source - and Apple does permit
> grant to use without a license - so it may not take much at all to get
> it into Fedora Extras.
>
> slimserver itself though I don't think will be able to go into extras
> unless it would be useful to people who do not use music files created
> with an encoder that has patent distribution issues. SlimServer works
> fine with ogg now, but only if streamed lossless or if transcoded to
> mp3.
>
> Lossless streaming of ogg files as PCM or FLAC is not attractive to
> the Fedora Extras community, and transcoding to mp3 would require
> lame.
>
> Slimserver could be patched by the OSS to stream ogg, but such a patch
> would not work with a Squeezebox unless the Squeezebox could do
> something with that ogg stream.
>
> Starting with Fedora Core 4, Fedora Extras will be enabled by default
> on a users machine. The goal for Fedora is that by FC5, a user can
> install stuff from Extras that they want at the time that they
> install.
>
> Having SlimServer in Fedora Extras thus means that all a Fedora user
> would have to do is run "yum install slimserver" and they are good to
> go. Slick, easy, trouble free installation - with a support backend to
> push updates through when available every time the user runs "yum
> update" on their system.
>
> Such ease of installation/maintenance means more users of SlimServer,
> even if they are not all users of SqueezeBox itself - more users of
> the server potentially means more issues being resolved in a timely
> manner (it's an open source project) which means a better product for
> buyers of the product on ANY platform.
>
> That's where I'm coming from - that's what oggdec on the SqueezeBox
> firmware would potentially do.
>
> --
> http://mpeters.us/
>

Michael Peters
2005-03-16, 12:25
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:29:52 +0100, Christian Pernegger
<pernegger (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:
> >Just so there is some clarity on the subject, here is where I am
> >coming from completely.
>
> <snip>
>
> Your post is extremely informative and I'm sure Fedora users appreciate your
> work. However, there is exactly one point about which I propose we just
> agree to disagree:
>
> >Lossless streaming of ogg files as PCM or FLAC is not attractive to the
> >Fedora Extras community

It's a waste of resources.
You don't get better audio quality by streaming an ogg file as lossless.
It does take more CPU usage - as it has to be decoded (and maybe flac encoded)
It does take more bandwidth on your network.

So by streaming oggs as lossless, you use more resources and do not
gain anything.
If all your network/computer do is squeezebox - BFD.
But Linux users tend to have a lot more going on, and also often tend
to use older computers as headless boxes for things like slimserver -
where the cpu load will make a difference (especially if same box is
being used for DNS and mail and ... as well)



--
http://mpeters.us/

Michael Peters
2005-03-16, 15:54
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:51:47 -0700, Jason <jason (AT) pagefamily (DOT) net> wrote:
>
>
> However, as many have told you, the CPU requirements of transcoding are
> minimal and transcoding to a lossless format for delivery is an excellent
> solution for most users.

Minimal, yes - but it needs to in real time at least enough to keep
the buffer fed.
On my 2Hz athlon machine - I occasionally get skips when playing mp3
if I'm doing something else (such as transcoding mpeg2 to DivX - or
the opposite, going from DivX to mpeg2)

Especially when fetchmail pops my pop account and then has to pass it
through SpamAssassin.

Just streaming the mp3 without unencoding is a lot easier on the cpu.
It's true that most cpu cycles are thrown away, the problem is when
you are utilizing the cpu and the process needs to be relatively real
time to keep the buffer fed.

Since lossy is smaller, the buffer can hold more - and with no
transcoding, the CPU can be busy doing something else, and still be
able to do the I/O required to keep the buffer fed so you don't skip
in playback.

--
http://mpeters.us/

Michael Peters
2005-03-16, 15:55
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:54:59 -0800, Michael Peters <funkyres (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

> On my 2Hz athlon machine -

That should read 2GHz ;)

--
http://mpeters.us/

Michael Peters
2005-03-16, 16:10
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:06:46 +0100, Christian Pernegger
<pernegger (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

>
> Are you sure you're cpu bound and not disk bound? The 2.4 disk elevator is a
> nightmare and the 2.6 default is not perfect either.

It also happens with my flac files which are on a separate dedicated
hard disk (with nothing else on, though I have contemplated putting a
swap on it.)

--
http://mpeters.us/