PDA

View Full Version : squeezebox1G display improvements are great!



Ben Cook
2005-03-19, 12:55
My wireless SBG runs happily with 0.01 and 1 pixel. The display looks so
much better now!

I have a dedicated B access point. Server is P4 2.8GHz. Signal strength 74%.


-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com] On Behalf Of Triode
Sent: 19 March 2005 16:27
To: Slim Devices Discussion
Subject: [slim] squeezebox1G display improvements are great!

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?
>
>

Chris Johnson
2005-03-19, 17:48
> 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
I'm running a Debian Testing (Sarge) fileserver, no X or anything. PIII 450 w/
200MB Ram. Wired connection to the SB1. Very low use home network. Serving
only MP3s.

Server use hopped from about 3% to 5%. No music dropouts. The display clearly
jerks a little when a new song is starting or during other updates, but it's
1000 times better with these settings. I haven't tried to go any further
because these settings are aesthetically excellent and completely reasonable on
my server load. I'd take these or maybe slightly more conservative as defaults
for my needs.





----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.