PDA

View Full Version : squeezebox1G display improvements are great!



John Gorst
2005-03-19, 06:40
Just found the new scroll rate and scroll pixels settings in 'player
setting' 'display' in the web interface.

I have changed them to 0.04 & 0.04 and 2 & 2. My squeeze box now looks a
thousand times better when scrolling and improves the readability when
using the 'medium' fond from accross the room.

On my server this adds the following load:
10 kb/sec on the wired connection (compared to 3 kb/sec)
5.5% processor useage when scrolling 'nowplaying'
but paused (compared to 3%)

This is on a wired squeezebox and a quite underpowered server (celeron
633, 512mb, mandrake 10).

I would expect a more modern server to not even notice the difference in
% cpu useage.

The only problems I can see are:
1) ?over a wireless link - is sending loads of small packets healthy for
a wireless link?
2) for remote softsqueeze connection 10kb/sec vs 3kb/sec is quite a hit
on bandwidth

I am moving my server soon so it uses a wireless bridge for conection to
the wireless router that my sb is hard wired to - so I shall see what
happens to that.

Perhaps the default value for wired connections should be increased to
similar values as above to show off the display capabilities to the new
user who wouldnt usually fiddle with these values?

Perhaps the deault could be different for wired and wireless clients?
The softsqueeze issue probably doesnt matter any more ?as the scrolling
is done on the client side?

John Gorst
2005-03-19, 06:48
Can someone check to see if this works over a wireless connection (when
playing pcm). Preferably using a g wireless bridge as that it what I am
thinking of putting inbetween my sb and server. If it doesnt work then I
would consider leaving my noisey server in the lounge just for the
improvement in the display!

p.s. filed as bug 1126

John Gorst wrote:
>
> Just found the new scroll rate and scroll pixels settings in 'player
> setting' 'display' in the web interface.
>
> I have changed them to 0.04 & 0.04 and 2 & 2. My squeeze box now looks a
> thousand times better when scrolling and improves the readability when
> using the 'medium' fond from accross the room.
>
> On my server this adds the following load:
> 10 kb/sec on the wired connection (compared to 3 kb/sec)
> 5.5% processor useage when scrolling 'nowplaying'
> but paused (compared to 3%)
>
> This is on a wired squeezebox and a quite underpowered server (celeron
> 633, 512mb, mandrake 10).
>
> I would expect a more modern server to not even notice the difference in
> % cpu useage.
>
> The only problems I can see are:
> 1) ?over a wireless link - is sending loads of small packets healthy for
> a wireless link?
> 2) for remote softsqueeze connection 10kb/sec vs 3kb/sec is quite a hit
> on bandwidth
>
> I am moving my server soon so it uses a wireless bridge for conection to
> the wireless router that my sb is hard wired to - so I shall see what
> happens to that.
>
> Perhaps the default value for wired connections should be increased to
> similar values as above to show off the display capabilities to the new
> user who wouldnt usually fiddle with these values?
>
> Perhaps the deault could be different for wired and wireless clients?
> The softsqueeze issue probably doesnt matter any more ?as the scrolling
> is done on the client side?

John Gorst
2005-03-19, 08:17
Would it be possible to add settings for the scroll rate and pixels for
when I navigate through menus as well?

John Gorst wrote:
>
> Just found the new scroll rate and scroll pixels settings in 'player
> setting' 'display' in the web interface.
>
> I have changed them to 0.04 & 0.04 and 2 & 2. My squeeze box now looks a
> thousand times better when scrolling and improves the readability when
> using the 'medium' fond from accross the room.
>
> On my server this adds the following load:
> 10 kb/sec on the wired connection (compared to 3 kb/sec)
> 5.5% processor useage when scrolling 'nowplaying'
> but paused (compared to 3%)
>
> This is on a wired squeezebox and a quite underpowered server (celeron
> 633, 512mb, mandrake 10).
>
> I would expect a more modern server to not even notice the difference in
> % cpu useage.
>
> The only problems I can see are:
> 1) ?over a wireless link - is sending loads of small packets healthy for
> a wireless link?
> 2) for remote softsqueeze connection 10kb/sec vs 3kb/sec is quite a hit
> on bandwidth
>
> I am moving my server soon so it uses a wireless bridge for conection to
> the wireless router that my sb is hard wired to - so I shall see what
> happens to that.
>
> Perhaps the default value for wired connections should be increased to
> similar values as above to show off the display capabilities to the new
> user who wouldnt usually fiddle with these values?
>
> Perhaps the deault could be different for wired and wireless clients?
> The softsqueeze issue probably doesnt matter any more ?as the scrolling
> is done on the client side?

Triode
2005-03-19, 09:27
John,

Is should work over a wireless connection but you need to gauge the amount of bandwidth you have.

The new scrolling stuff is mine, it gives lower cpu for scrolling and the ability to make scrolling far smoother. However as all
the work is done on the server, this can lead to high network bandwidth and is server cpu dependant. So for the moment we did not
change the default values, so users who don't touch get the cpu gain, but don't get the improved scrolling display.

I would value feedback from a range of users on this. On a wired connection and a good wireless connection (short range), I can get
to 0.01 and 1 pixel. This is 100 frames per second! However the downside of setting too fast is that you will block communication
between the client and the server and so the user interface will lock up etc. Hence feedback of good settings for real world
wireless connections would be good (and maybe we can then be more agressive on the defaults). I would advice testing it whilst
streaming in pcm mode to see what the limit is for you.

Adrian


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Gorst" <john_gorst (AT) hotmail (DOT) com>
To: <discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 1:48 PM
Subject: [slim] squeezebox1G display improvements are great!


>
> Can someone check to see if this works over a wireless connection (when playing pcm). Preferably using a g wireless bridge as that
> it what I am thinking of putting inbetween my sb and server. If it doesnt work then I would consider leaving my noisey server in
> the lounge just for the improvement in the display!
>
> p.s. filed as bug 1126
>
> John Gorst wrote:
>>
>> Just found the new scroll rate and scroll pixels settings in 'player setting' 'display' in the web interface.
>>
>> I have changed them to 0.04 & 0.04 and 2 & 2. My squeeze box now looks a thousand times better when scrolling and improves the
>> readability when using the 'medium' fond from accross the room.
>>
>> On my server this adds the following load:
>> 10 kb/sec on the wired connection (compared to 3 kb/sec)
>> 5.5% processor useage when scrolling 'nowplaying'
>> but paused (compared to 3%)
>>
>> This is on a wired squeezebox and a quite underpowered server (celeron 633, 512mb, mandrake 10).
>>
>> I would expect a more modern server to not even notice the difference in % cpu useage.
>>
>> The only problems I can see are:
>> 1) ?over a wireless link - is sending loads of small packets healthy for a wireless link?
>> 2) for remote softsqueeze connection 10kb/sec vs 3kb/sec is quite a hit on bandwidth
>>
>> I am moving my server soon so it uses a wireless bridge for conection to the wireless router that my sb is hard wired to - so I
>> shall see what happens to that.
>>
>> Perhaps the default value for wired connections should be increased to similar values as above to show off the display
>> capabilities to the new user who wouldnt usually fiddle with these values?
>>
>> Perhaps the deault could be different for wired and wireless clients? The softsqueeze issue probably doesnt matter any more ?as
>> the scrolling is done on the client side?
>
>

Triode
2005-03-19, 09:30
John,

Do you mean the rate at which the menus scroll left/right? [conceptually possible on SBG, but not for Softsqueeze or SB2 as its all
done on the client]
If you mean smooth scrolling when scrolling up and down long playlists then, _no_ not so easy...

Adrian
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Gorst" <john_gorst (AT) hotmail (DOT) com>
To: <discuss (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 3:17 PM
Subject: [slim] squeezebox1G display improvements are great!


>
> Would it be possible to add settings for the scroll rate and pixels for when I navigate through menus as well?
>
> John Gorst wrote:
>>
>> Just found the new scroll rate and scroll pixels settings in 'player setting' 'display' in the web interface.
>>
>> I have changed them to 0.04 & 0.04 and 2 & 2. My squeeze box now looks a thousand times better when scrolling and improves the
>> readability when using the 'medium' fond from accross the room.
>>
>> On my server this adds the following load:
>> 10 kb/sec on the wired connection (compared to 3 kb/sec)
>> 5.5% processor useage when scrolling 'nowplaying'
>> but paused (compared to 3%)
>>
>> This is on a wired squeezebox and a quite underpowered server (celeron 633, 512mb, mandrake 10).
>>
>> I would expect a more modern server to not even notice the difference in % cpu useage.
>>
>> The only problems I can see are:
>> 1) ?over a wireless link - is sending loads of small packets healthy for a wireless link?
>> 2) for remote softsqueeze connection 10kb/sec vs 3kb/sec is quite a hit on bandwidth
>>
>> I am moving my server soon so it uses a wireless bridge for conection to the wireless router that my sb is hard wired to - so I
>> shall see what happens to that.
>>
>> Perhaps the default value for wired connections should be increased to similar values as above to show off the display
>> capabilities to the new user who wouldnt usually fiddle with these values?
>>
>> Perhaps the deault could be different for wired and wireless clients? The softsqueeze issue probably doesnt matter any more ?as
>> the scrolling is done on the client side?
>
>

John Gorst
2005-03-19, 10:56
Triode wrote:
> John,
>
> Do you mean the rate at which the menus scroll left/right?
> [conceptually possible on SBG, but not for Softsqueeze or SB2 as its all
> done on the client]
> If you mean smooth scrolling when scrolling up and down long playlists
> then, _no_ not so easy...

Left and right and on the squeezeboxG

Is the scrolling done on the client for softsqueeze2/squeezebox2? I
thought it was, but eh scroll rate/pixel on the slimserver still alter
how good softsqueeze looks when scrolling now playing. Or is it only
left/right scrolling though menus which is done client side?

Triode
2005-03-19, 11:07
> Left and right and on the squeezeboxG

Conceptually this could be done... I'll have a think about it.

>
> Is the scrolling done on the client for softsqueeze2/squeezebox2? I
> thought it was, but eh scroll rate/pixel on the slimserver still alter
> how good softsqueeze looks when scrolling now playing. Or is it only
> left/right scrolling though menus which is done client side?

Softsqueeze does the L/R scrolling, the continous scrolling of text is done on the server (as for SGB)

Adrian

John Gorst
2005-03-19, 13:02
As I have shown there is not much cpu impact on increasing the quality
to nearly maximum, especially if using a system better than mine which I
assume most people are (celeron 633).

The only question is whether wireless links are up to it, especially
when doing pcm. Maybe the automatic defaults would detect a wireless vs
wired squeezebox. If it is wired it would use a higher (but may be not
as high as I suggested), and if it is wireless stick with the current
default. I assume that slimserver can detect wireless clients as it
already does so for bitrate limiting setup.


Triode wrote:
> John,
>
> Is should work over a wireless connection but you need to gauge the
> amount of bandwidth you have.
>
> The new scrolling stuff is mine, it gives lower cpu for scrolling and
> the ability to make scrolling far smoother. However as all the work is
> done on the server, this can lead to high network bandwidth and is
> server cpu dependant. So for the moment we did not change the default
> values, so users who don't touch get the cpu gain, but don't get the
> improved scrolling display.
>
> I would value feedback from a range of users on this. On a wired
> connection and a good wireless connection (short range), I can get to
> 0.01 and 1 pixel. This is 100 frames per second! However the downside
> of setting too fast is that you will block communication between the
> client and the server and so the user interface will lock up etc. Hence
> feedback of good settings for real world wireless connections would be
> good (and maybe we can then be more agressive on the defaults). I would
> advice testing it whilst streaming in pcm mode to see what the limit is
> for you.

John Gorst
2005-03-19, 16:54
Triode wrote:

> I would value feedback from a range of users on this. On a wired
> connection and a good wireless connection (short range), I can get to
> 0.01 and 1 pixel. This is 100 frames per second! However the downside
> of setting too fast is that you will block communication between the
> client and the server and so the user interface will lock up etc. Hence
> feedback of good settings for real world wireless connections would be
> good (and maybe we can then be more agressive on the defaults). I would
> advice testing it whilst streaming in pcm mode to see what the limit is
> for you.

Just moved my server onto a wireless bridge. So my sb1 is hardwired into
my wireless router, which links via 54g bridge to my slimserver. (about
10m through a tv, 2 brick walls and a boiler!)

With 0.01 and 1 as the settings things work perfectly when streaming pcm.

The only problem I am having now is that if I have a web ui, it
refreshes around the time of a track change causing a skip in the music
- especially if the playlist is large. Without the webui open things are
fine. I don't think this is a wireless bandwidth issue though as when I
am streaming pcm, I can copy large files from my (wireless) laptop from
the slimserver at around 8mbps (18% of 54g).

Triode
2005-03-20, 04:48
> The only problem I am having now is that if I have a web ui, it
> refreshes around the time of a track change causing a skip in the music
> - especially if the playlist is large. Without the webui open things are
> fine. I don't think this is a wireless bandwidth issue though as when I
> am streaming pcm, I can copy large files from my (wireless) laptop from
> the slimserver at around 8mbps (18% of 54g).
>

John,

Is this related to the scolling or independant? i.e. if you set the scolling parameters back to defauts does it change this?

Adrian