PDA

View Full Version : Squeezebox and Yahoo Music Subscription



stack
2005-09-06, 09:12
I subscribed to the Yahoo subscription service thinking I could then play these songs on my squeezebox and essentially increase my music collection by many thousands of songs.

BUT when I tried to access the songs I had moved to my computer the Squeezebox said it could not access these files. I checked the properties and see where they are protected files.

I can play them all I want on my computer but the Squeezebox won't play them.

Am I just doing something wrong or do I just cancel my trial subscription?

radish
2005-09-06, 09:15
Welcome to the wonderful world of DRM. I'd complain to Yahoo and cancel the subscription.

m1abrams
2005-09-06, 10:39
Yep DRM is not your friend. This is my biggest complaint with most Online music stores, they get to say how you listen to your music. And that usually is not in your favor. I recommend you cancel your subscription. I have yet to see an online music store that gives a better deal than buying the CD. Note I weigh in the factor that CD is of better quality, and can be used how I want. Yes some "CDs" have protection, and if I can not get the music ripped I return the CD saying it is defective.

A few bands do offer FLAC encoded recordings of their songs/shows for sale, and those are a good deal. But to my knowledge that is only a few. Phish is one of those bands, and hey I like Phish.
http://www.livephish.com/

mkozlows
2005-09-07, 20:32
If, on the other hand, you like the cheap, unlimited access to a huge music catalog better than you like the Squeezebox, check out Roku's players. They're terrible, far worse than the Squeezebox in basically every way, but they do support PlaysForSure, which is what you need to operate with Yahoo.

fathom39
2005-09-07, 22:10
they get to say how you listen to your music. And that usually is not in your favor.

Reminds me of Lars Ultra-rich who waxed legal about Napster to Regis on WWTBAM with "Metallica never intended or gave permission for their songs to be listened to in that way", or something like that. And, years before that when the music industry was suing on the legality of used CD stores Barf Grooks became a spokesman of sorts and complained that these stores were "taking food off his family's table."

AV_Guy
2005-11-15, 18:44
If, on the other hand, you like the cheap, unlimited access to a huge music catalog better than you like the Squeezebox, check out Roku's players. They're terrible, far worse than the Squeezebox in basically every way, but they do support PlaysForSure, which is what you need to operate with Yahoo.
Having had both players around for several months, I certainly wouldn't say the Roku is "terrible" or worse than the Squeezebox in basically every way. For one, the Roku is available with much larger displays. For another they have a better remote. Until the Squeezebox 2, they also had better analog audio quality. One of the huge Roku advantages is you don't need to run any proprietary software on your server. The Roku players connect to Windows Media Connect which is essentially part of XP SP2. That's also why they can play Microsoft DRM content such as Yahoo Music Unlimited. Trying to use the Roku with Slimserver isn't a great thing (although it mostly works), perhaps that's what you're referring to?

The only significant feature the Roku lacks (for me at least) is the ability to sync multiple players between rooms in your home. Otherwise I mostly prefer it over my Squeezebox 2.

I'm waiting for either Slim to add DRM support or Roku to add player sync (which they claim is on their intended feature list). The first one to offer both sync and DRM will get more of my business and I know several custom home audio/video installers waiting for the same thing.

radish
2005-11-15, 20:27
One of the huge Roku advantages is you don't need to run any proprietary software on your server. The Roku players connect to Windows Media Connect which is essentially part of XP SP2.

Wait - did I miss a press release? Did Microsoft just open source XP? No? Then I guess it's proprietary huh?

As you were.

mkozlows
2005-11-15, 22:28
Having had both players around for several months, I certainly wouldn't say the Roku is "terrible" or worse than the Squeezebox in basically every way. ... One of the huge Roku advantages is you don't need to run any proprietary software on your server. The Roku players connect to Windows Media Connect which is essentially part of XP SP2.

Yeah, I know -- but that was both the good part and the bad part of it. The capabilities were nice, but the UI that exposed those capabilities... not so much. But rather than repeat myself, I'll just point at the review I wrote on AVSForum:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=553516

dean
2005-11-15, 23:23
On Nov 15, 2005, at 5:44 PM, AV_Guy wrote:
> For another they have a better remote.
I'd like to know why you think the Roku remote is better.

My experience was that my hand got cramped after just a few minutes
of use of the thing, plus I found that the navigation user interface
was quite unintuitive.

danco
2005-11-16, 01:16
If one has music that will only play on the computer, there's always (if one cares enough) the solution of using a program that takes the computer sound and broadcasts it. Nicecast on the Mac, and I think it's Icecast or Winamp on a PC>

bludragon
2005-11-16, 04:19
Without having looked into this, I'd have thought that anything that plays on a pc, could be converted to wav. Worst case this might involve hooking the digital out to the digital in, but I would expect there's some software way to do the equivalent.

Dave D
2005-11-16, 04:38
Well, this is totally off topic, but I'm going to respond because you are being deceptive, which I especially dislike.

The Roku display you refer to is larger in width only and you must buy the $400 M2000 model to get it. The $200 M1000 has a much SMALLER display which cannot be compared at all to the one in the Squeezebox. In fact, the Squeezebox2/3 has the same vertical resolution as the $400 M2000 and costs $100 less.

If we're going to compare one vs. the other, let's use the whole truth.

[QUOTE]For another they have a better remote.

Get out of town. Not even close, and you know it. Try searching for a song or artist on the Roku. It's a total joke. You sound like you have not really compared the two products at all.


Until the Squeezebox 2, they also had better analog audio quality.

Since I can't comment on the technical details of past products, the only comment I have about this statement is: SO WHAT? Slim Devices is on Squeezebox3 now, which is technically identical to Squeezebox2. What's the problem here?


One of the huge Roku advantages is you don't need to run any proprietary software on your server. The Roku players connect to Windows Media Connect which is essentially part of XP SP2. That's also why they can play Microsoft DRM content such as Yahoo Music Unlimited.

You will get no argument from most of us that the most significant detraction of the Squeezebox is the lack of ability to play DRM-protected songs. The server is not at all a disadvantage. Many of us would consider it a huge advantage since features and plugins are easily added at any time, by a large community of programmers.

Fabrice Rossi
2005-11-16, 05:59
AV_Guy wrote:
> One of the huge Roku advantages
> is you don't need to run any proprietary software on your server. The
> Roku players connect to Windows Media Connect which is essentially part
> of XP SP2.

By proprietary, I guess you mean open source program, right? One of
Slimdevices huge advantages is that they support linux and other unices,
rather than only Windows and Mac OS X. They are so open that Roku's
soundbridge can connect to slimserver.

Fabrice

Jim
2005-11-16, 07:15
Refreshing to see an "audiophile" posting in the audiophile section comparing ever so important things to all audiophiles such as remote controls.

And to be mentioning words such as R*ku, Yahoo, Music Subscription etc... in here doesn't half make me chuckle or at least think...."ummmm...wrong section."