PDA

View Full Version : SlimRoku - SlimServer based music player for the Roku PhotoBridge HD1000



TheEndless
2005-09-13, 18:45
I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this, or if anyone here would be interested in it, but...

I've written a SlimServer based music player for the Roku PhotoBridge High Definition Digital Media Player (http://www.rokulabs.com/products/photobridge/index.php). It has music library, cover art, dynamic and static playlist support as well as an emulated SqueezeBox interface. Attached are a few thumbnail screenshots...

More information and more full resolution screenshots can be found at http://www.permanence.com/SlimRoku.

Feel free to comment, criticize, or ignore!

TheEndless

seanadams
2005-09-13, 21:07
IMHO innovative engineering like this should be applauded regardless of political/competitive issues, which are complicated and still unfolding - don't care to comment further on that, except to say nice work!

gandt
2005-09-14, 03:53
But does it work with SB2 OK? I think I'd prefer that skin to some of the existing ones though without that big Roku logo...


Graham

Dave D
2005-09-14, 04:31
I'm wondering: is the source code available (since it uses Slimserver)?

gandt
2005-09-14, 05:25
OK now had a look at the web site - can we please have this for Squeezebox - it really looks fabulous, expecially for those people who use their SB on a big screen (like me). I would certainly donate.

m1abrams
2005-09-14, 05:38
OK now had a look at the web site - can we please have this for Squeezebox - it really looks fabulous, expecially for those people who use their SB on a big screen (like me). I would certainly donate.

How do you use your SB on a big screen? SB has no video out. The Roku device the poster used has a video out and I suspect is using that video out to display on the screen. Very nice job, looks great.

ModelCitizen
2005-09-14, 05:48
I'd be very interested too. I find the SlimServer interface quite frustrating to use with my 800 album flac library and I wonder if this app (it's Java isn't it?) could be a good replacement for it (if it supported Flacs & SB2)?

As I've said (many times) before, I'd willingly pay for a software app that perfoms well (or even acceptably!) on my Windows machines.

MC

gandt
2005-09-14, 05:49
ah i assumed this was (amongst other things) also the look and feel for the web front end and that the slimserver was also look like that big chunky and cool - wrong maybe?

m1abrams
2005-09-14, 06:05
I'd be very interested too. I find the SlimServer interface quite frustrating to use with my 800 album flac library and I wonder if this app (it's Java isn't it?) could be a good replacement for it (if it supported Flacs & SB2)?

As I've said (many times) before, I'd willingly pay for a software app that perfoms well (or even acceptably!) on my Windows machines.

MC

I guess I am just a different type of Slim user. I DONT want a TV or a computer in the room I listen to my music with. Which is my big reason for going with a SB over other products on the market. Most other products require a TV to listen to music. Yes while you can get more info on a TV screen, I find what the Slim guys have done with a limited display to be a great UI for finding and listening to music. I have a ~400 album collection.

Course I also treat the slimserver software as just what its name is, a piece of server software. I actually only view the web interface at most twice a month just to create a few playlists.

tgoldstone
2005-09-14, 07:52
I've written a SlimServer based music player for the Roku PhotoBridge High Definition Digital Media Player (http://www.rokulabs.com/products/photobridge/index.php). It has music library, cover art, dynamic and static playlist support as well as an emulated SqueezeBox interface. Attached are a few thumbnail screenshots...

TheEndless

Personally speaking, I think you would be far happier modding with a Squeezebox than spending time developing apps for the Roku. :)

jtfields
2005-09-14, 08:57
That is a very slick looking skin. I actually have my PC running SlimServer connected to my TV via S-Video and run a modified skin with larger fonts and more "TV friendly" color schemes. The SlimRoku definitely looks much better than what I'm using.

TheEndless
2005-09-14, 09:21
I'm wondering: is the source code available (since it uses Slimserver)?
The source is not currently available. It uses the "published" APIs for communicating with SlimServer (CLI, SlimProto, and the web interface). It doesn't actually use any SlimServer code directly.

I may decide to make the source (C++) available in the future, but it is not my plan to do so at this time.

TheEndless

TheEndless
2005-09-14, 09:28
I'd be very interested too. I find the SlimServer interface quite frustrating to use with my 800 album flac library and I wonder if this app (it's Java isn't it?) could be a good replacement for it (if it supported Flacs & SB2)?

As I've said (many times) before, I'd willingly pay for a software app that perfoms well (or even acceptably!) on my Windows machines.

MC
It's actually written in C++ and uses the proprietary Roku Cascade API for display and playback on the PhotoBridge.

If there's sufficient interest, I wouldn't be opposed to writing a Windows equivalent...

TheEndless

Nick Silberstein
2005-09-14, 09:47
TheEndless wrote:
> If there's sufficient interest, I wouldn't be opposed to writing a
> Windows equivalent...

I'd be interested in using, and happy to help test, a windows version
with no Roku dependencies.

If and when you're ready, I'd be delighted if you open sourced your app
(naturally that's your choice, and I'm not suggesting otherwise). Open
source software is, after all, what made a lot of this possible!

Best regards,
Nick

--
Nick Silberstein
Senior Developer
Flying Machine Development, Inc.

kdf
2005-09-14, 09:49
Quoting jtfields <jtfields.1vcw61 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>:

>
> That is a very slick looking skin.

Given that this is a c++ app written on the hardware API and using only the CLI
and slimproto to talk to slimserver, I would expect the UI is not a slimserver
skin.

I'm actually a little surprised that after all this time, so few outside
applications have come along to announce slimserver hooks like this.

-kdf

TheEndless
2005-09-14, 09:57
Personally speaking, I think you would be far happier modding with a Squeezebox than spending time developing apps for the Roku. :)
Being completely Perl illiterate, I'm not sure how well that would go over :p

TheEndless

hakan
2005-09-14, 10:51
Quoting jtfields <jtfields.1vcw61 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>:

>
> That is a very slick looking skin.

Given that this is a c++ app written on the hardware API and using only the CLI
and slimproto to talk to slimserver, I would expect the UI is not a slimserver
skin.

I'm actually a little surprised that after all this time, so few outside applications have come along to announce slimserver hooks like this.

-kdf


At one time, I tought about adding slimproto support to my jukebox, but just having a webpad with WLAN and another squeezebox in the hobby room turned out to be a way more efficient use of time ;-)



Regards,
Hakan

m1abrams
2005-09-14, 10:59
Quoting jtfields <jtfields.1vcw61 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>:

>
> That is a very slick looking skin.


I'm actually a little surprised that after all this time, so few outside
applications have come along to announce slimserver hooks like this.

-kdf
Because the guys who have the know-how to do such a thing probably have found that a PDA with Wifi using the handheld skin is pretty damn useful and probably dont see a need for anything else. I know at first I thought a PDA specfic app would be great and even considered writing one until I gave the handheld skin a try and realised the work is already done.

TheEndless
2005-09-14, 12:41
Because the guys who have the know-how to do such a thing probably have found that a PDA with Wifi using the handheld skin is pretty damn useful and probably dont see a need for anything else. I know at first I thought a PDA specfic app would be great and even considered writing one until I gave the handheld skin a try and realised the work is already done.
I think he's actually referring to all-in-one apps (player/library browsing/playlist management) moreso than just SlimServer/Squeezebox access and control.

TheEndless

ModelCitizen
2005-09-14, 13:41
Just to get this thread back on track.
A C++ app for running my Squeezebox looks good to me. I would help test it on my Squeezebox anyway I can, and would pay for the result.

To put this into context:

I have spent a load of dosh on my hifi
I listen to music virtually all the time
Most of my music is on hard disk in lossless format and I've spent too much dosh on that too.
Squeezebox, I've spent some dosh on and it seems fine but is reliant on SlimServer.
Slimserver, extremely slow and unreliable (and has been the same way for almost two years). It can destroy my Squeezebox experience (and very often does).

I'd really like a good bit of software, written with Windows in mind, that enables me to search, list and play my music quickly/instantly and reliably. I'd also appreciate an elegant, configurable interface, but this is secondary.

If this app could do that (can it? If it uses Slimserver, isn't it handicapped already?), then I am all for it.

My benchmark for Windows music software is always Foobar 2000. What an amazing bit of kit.... knocks all professional music software (Windows Media Player, Music Match, Real Player, Winamap etc etc) into a cocked hat.... and apparently written by one guy (give him a knighthood).

I am f***** desperate for some good software to run my Squeezebox.

The recent Slimserver upgrade from 5*** to 6*** has made no difference at all to me. It still runs like a dog.

MC

danco
2005-09-14, 14:15
On 14/9/05 at 13:41 -0700, ModelCitizen wrote
>Just to get this thread back on track.
>A C++ app for running my Squeezebox looks good to me. I would help test
>it on my Squeezebox anyway I can, and would pay for the result.

C++ perhaps. I don't know anything about that. Any good language is
fine with me. I don't use my SB the way you do, so I don't have the
problems you have, but by all means let's get rid of any problems
that exist.

>
>I'd really like a good bit of software, written with Windows in mind,
>that enables me to search, list and play my music quickly/instantly and
>reliably. I'd also appreciate an elegant, configurable interface, but
>this is secondary.

But "written with Windows in mind" not only would not suit me, but
seems to me to be against the SlimDevices philosophy.

That is, one of the virtues of SlimDevices approach is that it is
cross-platform. As a Mac user (and others are Linux/Unix users) I
chose the Squeezebox precisely because it was not Windows only.

Possibly they could make more money designing for Windows only, but
money is not the only criterion.

--
Daniel Cohen

JJZolx
2005-09-14, 14:21
I'm actually a little surprised that after all this time, so few outside
applications have come along to announce slimserver hooks like this.
Why is that? Other than being able to take advantage of SlimServer's ability to do on the fly transcoding (in this case giving the Roku PhotoBridge the ability to play back many more formats than it can do natively) what would be a reason to run SlimServer if you don't have a Squeezebox?

m1abrams
2005-09-14, 14:26
You know I have been running the latest nightly unstable build of slimserver for the past 2 years and have had very little bad experiences with it. However the issue may lie with the windows build, as I have been using the linux build and have never had good experience with perl on windows.

I personnally think slimserver is a pretty slick piece of software and does a GREAT job handling all my FLAC encoded music and even allows me to listen to my music at work via transcoding on the fly.

I am surprised at the number of people that complain about the slimserver software, I think it is rather good.

A C++ solution would not be very portable across platforms.

TheEndless
2005-09-14, 14:46
Why is that? Other than being able to take advantage of SlimServer's ability to do on the fly transcoding (in this case giving the Roku PhotoBridge the ability to play back many more formats than it can do natively) what would be a reason to run SlimServer if you don't have a Squeezebox?
I can think of several reasons... all being reasons I chose to write SlimRoku instead of RokUPnP. An active, open-source, developer community
Ability to control playback from the web interface
Extensive, (relatively) easy to use, APIs for communication between client and server
Cover art support
A full plug-in architecture
On-the-fly transcoding
Built-in support for multiple internet radio servicesAnd several more I can't think of right now...

TheEndless

TheEndless
2005-09-14, 14:54
Just to get this thread back on track.
A C++ app for running my Squeezebox looks good to me. I would help test it on my Squeezebox anyway I can, and would pay for the result.

To put this into context:

I have spent a load of dosh on my hifi
I listen to music virtually all the time
Most of my music is on hard disk in lossless format and I've spent too much dosh on that too.
Squeezebox, I've spent some dosh on and it seems fine but is reliant on SlimServer.
Slimserver, extremely slow and unreliable (and has been the same way for almost two years). It can destroy my Squeezebox experience (and very often does).

I'd really like a good bit of software, written with Windows in mind, that enables me to search, list and play my music quickly/instantly and reliably. I'd also appreciate an elegant, configurable interface, but this is secondary.

If this app could do that (can it? If it uses Slimserver, isn't it handicapped already?), then I am all for it.

My benchmark for Windows music software is always Foobar 2000. What an amazing bit of kit.... knocks all professional music software (Windows Media Player, Music Match, Real Player, Winamap etc etc) into a cocked hat.... and apparently written by one guy (give him a knighthood).

I am f***** desperate for some good software to run my Squeezebox.

The recent Slimserver upgrade from 5*** to 6*** has made no difference at all to me. It still runs like a dog.

MC
Ack! Noooo... I have no desire to write a replacement for SlimServer! I was thinking more along the lines of a SlimServer client for Windows-based HTPCs (*if* there was enough interest in it). And it'd most likely be written in .net rather than C++.

TheEndless

JJZolx
2005-09-14, 15:00
Ability to control playback from the web interface
Is it your application that gives a user the ability to play music through the Roku via the web interface, or is that ability native to the Roku? (I thought I'd read that recent versions of SlimServer no longer worked with the Roku line.) If it's the latter, then it would take considerable amount of work for an application for any other device to take advantage of the web interface - something along the line of a headless SoftSqueeze type application sitting between the server and the device.

TheEndless
2005-09-14, 16:00
Is it your application that gives a user the ability to play music through the Roku via the web interface, or is that ability native to the Roku? (I thought I'd read that recent versions of SlimServer no longer worked with the Roku line.) If it's the latter, then it would take considerable amount of work for an application for any other device to take advantage of the web interface - something along the line of a headless SoftSqueeze type application sitting between the server and the device.
It's the SlimProto TCP protocol that makes it possible to control playback from the web interface (or any other interface for that matter). SlimRoku actually identifies itself and communicates with the SlimServer as SoftSqueeze. So, I suppose in your scenario, SlimRoku is acting as a Roku-headed SoftSqueeze. And yes, it did take a considerable amount of work...

As for SlimServer not working with the Roku line, that only applies to the SoundBridge, and is actually an issue that has been corrected with the 6.1.2 nightlies.

TheEndless

ModelCitizen
2005-09-15, 13:05
But "written with Windows in mind" not only would not suit me, but
seems to me to be against the SlimDevices philosophy.
That is, one of the virtues of SlimDevices approach is that it is
cross-platform. As a Mac user (and others are Linux/Unix users) I
chose the Squeezebox precisely because it was not Windows only.
Possibly they could make more money designing for Windows only, but
money is not the only criterion.
Daniel Cohen

I just want a responsive application that plays my music. This is primary. All the rest (open source, radio, screensavers, news) are fripperies.

Every single night I am frustrated by the time it takes for SlimServer (via remote) to list my music. Sometimes it can take well over five minutes before I am able to play my chosen song!

I am convinced that applications designed in Perl do not work very efficiently on Windows.

With this in mind I couldn't care a toss if it's open source or if I have to pay more to get the thing I want (it's bound not to be much in the scale of things). I just want it to do the basics, fast and efficiently (yes, on Windows). Most apps written in C++ or .Net seem to work pretty well in Windows, whereas apps designed in Perl and Java (large overhead and flaky versioning) often lead to trouble (witness original SoftSqueeze install messiness, Nokia phone app and even Azureus).

The Squeezebox is a superb device but currrently I think the software lets it down (as does the case, but at least I can change that).

I've been using SlimDevices stuff since the SB1 came out and it has been liberating and frustrating. I have spent far too much time problem solving and looking at this forum/list.

I'd rather go fishing and listen to music.

MC

radish
2005-09-15, 13:40
I am convinced that applications designed in Perl do not work very efficiently on Windows.

Most apps written in C++ or .Net seem to work pretty well in Windows, whereas apps designed in Perl and Java (large overhead and flaky versioning) often lead to trouble (witness original SoftSqueeze install messiness, Nokia phone app and even Azureus).

Likewise, I am convinced that a sample size of 1 does not give an accurate representation of reality.

SlimServer runs just fine on Windows for me. 900 albums, 10000 tracks, 3500 artists. Responses via web or remote are virtually instant. This is on a machine cobbled together from spares running vanilla XP/SP2 and the last official release of SlimServer. Now we have a sample size of just 2, but the conclusion is considerably less clear.

You obviouly have problems, and for that I am sympathetic, but to come to the conclusion that Perl (or even Java for that matter) is the problem is a real stretch, and not backed up by the evidence.

abdomen
2005-09-15, 14:10
Likewise, I am convinced that a sample size of 1 does not give an accurate representation of reality.

SlimServer runs just fine on Windows for me. 900 albums, 10000 tracks, 3500 artists. Responses via web or remote are virtually instant. This is on a machine cobbled together from spares running vanilla XP/SP2 and the last official release of SlimServer. Now we have a sample size of just 2, but the conclusion is considerably less clear.

You obviouly have problems, and for that I am sympathetic, but to come to the conclusion that Perl (or even Java for that matter) is the problem is a real stretch, and not backed up by the evidence.

I have no such problems either on my Windows/SB2 setup. The only annoyance I get is periods when remote commands are followed by delays of up to about two seconds; at most times response is virtually instantaneous.

I do not think Perl itself can be fingered for any SlimServer performance problems. However, regardless of the proportion of users ModelCitizen's experience represents, his problem is obviously real. I hope its cause can be found and corrected.

danco
2005-09-15, 14:59
On 15/9/05 at 13:05 -0700, ModelCitizen wrote
>danco Wrote:
>>
>> But "written with Windows in mind" not only would not suit me, but
>> seems to me to be against the SlimDevices philosophy.
>> That is, one of the virtues of SlimDevices approach is that it is
>> cross-platform. As a Mac user (and others are Linux/Unix users) I
>> chose the Squeezebox precisely because it was not Windows only.
>> Possibly they could make more money designing for Windows only, but
>> money is not the only criterion.
>> Daniel Cohen
>
>I just want a responsive application that plays my music. This is
>primary. All the rest (open source, radio, screensavers, news) are
>fripperies.


Hmm, perhaps. But what has altered my music listening is AlienBBC
rather than SlimServer itself. I'm just as happy to use real CDs, but
the ability to LIsten Again and to listen to local radio has really
transformed things for me.

>
>
>I am convinced that applications designed in Perl do not work very
>efficiently on Windows.
>
>With this in mind I couldn't care a toss if it's open source or if I
>have to pay more to get the thing I want (it's bound not to be much in
>the scale of things). I just want it to do the basics, fast and
>efficiently (yes, on Windows). Most apps written in C++ or .Net seem to
>work pretty well in Windows, whereas apps designed in Perl and Java
>(large overhead and flaky versioning) often lead to trouble (witness
>original SoftSqueeze install messiness, Nokia phone app and even
>Azureus).
>
>The Squeezebox is a superb device but currrently I think the software
>lets it down (as does the case, but at least I can change that).

I'm not objecting to you, or anyone else, using Windows. I hope there
will be a version of SlimServer that works well and easily on
Windows. But cross-platform is important to me, and to others. I
don't want to be caught in a Windows dictatorship.
--
Daniel Cohen

jbm
2005-09-15, 21:24
2005-09-15-17:59:31 Daniel Cohen:
> I'm not objecting to you, or anyone else, using Windows. I hope there
> will be a version of SlimServer that works well and easily on
> Windows. But cross-platform is important to me, and to others. I
> don't want to be caught in a Windows dictatorship.

Well said. It's lovely (and indeed probably essential to the company's
success) that SlimServer runs on Windows, but had that been the only
usable platform, there's not a chance I'd have bought any of my three
(well, active; an equal number of Gen1 boxes passed on to friends when I
upgraded) Squeezeboxen. I simply refuse (for reasons of both principle
and simple practicality) to host anything I consider essential
infrastructure on a Windows box. I had my SlimServer on my desktop Mac
for awhile, and have now moved it to a Linux server I keep stashed away;
both have been nicely reliable platforms once I hit on a stable
SlimServer build. Windows? Go in peace, but it ain't for me.

jmpage2
2005-09-16, 07:36
I was thinking of getting another Squeezebox, but I have to be honest, this new application makes the Photobridge VERY attractive for use in my media center.

When we entertain in our large family area it is almost impossible to navigate the music collection from across the room, even with the font size set to max.

This device coupled with Slimserver really solves that problem, now I can have a large HD outputted display that my guests can use to listen to whatever they want from the music collection.

And I can use it to show off my photography in High Definition to boot.

Slim Devices really ought to hire this guy and come out with their own competing solution SOON, as there is definitely a market for this type of integration.

Michael Amster
2005-09-16, 11:36
jmpage2 wrote:

>I was thinking of getting another Squeezebox, but I have to be honest,
>this new application makes the Photobridge VERY attractive for use in
>my media center.
>
>When we entertain in our large family area it is almost impossible to
>navigate the music collection from across the room, even with the font
>size set to max.
>
>This device coupled with Slimserver really solves that problem, now I
>can have a large HD outputted display that my guests can use to listen
>to whatever they want from the music collection.
>
>And I can use it to show off my photography in High Definition to
>boot.
>
>Slim Devices really ought to hire this guy and come out with their own
>competing solution SOON, as there is definitely a market for this type
>of integration.
>
>
>
>
I can say, that in my main system, I would love the video output for
text as a feature. I love SB2, but I have to walk up to it to see the
screen (it is in a rack about 12 ft from where I sit). I think my
family would use it more too if they could see output on the screen in
overlay. I am less interested in the pic display, although there are
times I would use that too - like when the grandparents want to see
snaps of the boy running around. I know that this has been voted on. I
am eagerly awaiting the next Slim product.

pasodoble
2005-09-17, 17:23
Very attractive. I was wondering what to do with the living room SB(1)... upgrade or go with something else. I might toss it out and get the Roku. As mentioned by others, my #1 beef with SB1 and 2 is that I have to squint at it from across the room. I have a ridiculously large screen for my room size and something like the Photobridge will do the job very nicely.


Is there a possibility of this solution 'breaking' in the future as Slim upgrades software? And would all the video gubbins on the Photobridge result in crappy audio (via digital)?


It's just that every time video sneaks into my audio setup something seems to get broken. I bought a Naim DVD5 not so long ago which does video really well and it was kind of a impatient buying decision, but the first time I listened to a redbook on it 'in anger' I was sorely disappointed. I had to hang onto my previous CD player which I was hoping to get rid of.

TheEndless
2005-09-17, 19:18
Is there a possibility of this solution 'breaking' in the future as Slim upgrades software?My intention is to continue updating the application as new versions of SlimServer are released. In the unlikely event that I decide to stop supporting it, I will release the source for others to update.


And would all the video gubbins on the Photobridge result in crappy audio (via digital)?I personally haven't noticed any degradation in audio quality using the digital out, and I've not had any report of it from any of my users.

If you want to discuss this in more depth, you'd probably be better off doing so on the Roku forums...

TheEndless

jmpage2
2005-09-19, 08:48
Is there any plan to offer skin support for SlimRoku? The provided skin is nice but I think we could get some really varied and interesting results of skinning support was available.

TheEndless
2005-09-19, 14:27
Is there any plan to offer skin support for SlimRoku? The provided skin is nice but I think we could get some really varied and interesting results of skinning support was available.
Depends on what you mean by skin support. If you just mean different images, it can already be done by swapping out the image files in the images subfolder. If you're talking about more complex skinning like changing the layout, I don't currently have plans to make that possible.

TheEndless

ajmitchell
2006-06-25, 06:28
When I posted my no. 1 request (video out) on this post http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=24400 no one mentioned that this excellent software was available for Roku Hd1000. In fact I already own a HD1000 and had no idea about this!

I am coming very late to this post but offer full congrats to Endless for great work.

One basic question, should the shared folder in the HD1000 contain both the slimroku files and the shared music?

Alex

Kevin O. Lepard
2006-06-25, 08:40
>Roku Hd1000...One basic question, should the shared folder in the
>HD1000 contain both the slimroku files and the shared music?

I think you'll have a better chance of getting a useful response if
you post in the Roku forums. Not too many people use (or like) the
Roku products.

Kevin
--
Kevin O. Lepard

Happiness is being 100% Microsoft free.

Kevin O. Lepard
2006-06-25, 09:32
>>Roku Hd1000...One basic question, should the shared folder in the
>>HD1000 contain both the slimroku files and the shared music?
>
>I think you'll have a better chance of getting a useful response if
>you post in the Roku forums. Not too many people use (or like) the
>Roku products.

To clarify, that last sentence should read "Not too many people who
use (or like) the Roku products are frequenting the SlimDevices
forum." And as has been clearly stated, SlimDevices themselves do
not provide technical support for the use of SlimServer with other
folks products.

That said, someone over at Roku may know.

Kevin
--
Kevin O. Lepard

Happiness is being 100% Microsoft free.

TheEndless
2006-06-25, 10:11
When I posted my no. 1 request (video out) on this post http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=24400 no one mentioned that this excellent software was available for Roku Hd1000. In fact I already own a HD1000 and had no idea about this!

I am coming very late to this post but offer full congrats to Endless for great work.

One basic question, should the shared folder in the HD1000 contain both the slimroku files and the shared music?

Alex
The audio is served to SlimRoku via SlimServer, so your music only needs to be visible to SlimServer.

FYI, SlimRoku has it's own forum here http://www.permanence.com/roku/forums

TheEndless

ajmitchell
2006-06-25, 10:55
Thanks for the reply TheEndless.

Incidentally, will slimroku synchronise with others SB players using slimserver 6.2?

Ps. Re: comment above I hope this post is not inappropriate because I assumed slimserver related queries were valid on this board, not just SB ones

TheEndless
2006-06-25, 11:08
Thanks for the reply TheEndless.

Incidentally, will slimroku synchronise with others SB players using slimserver 6.2?

Ps. Re: comment above I hope this post is not inappropriate because I assumed slimserver related queries were valid on this board, not just SB ones
It should. I have not had the opportunity to test it with a true SqueezeBox, but synchronization has been tested extensively with SoftSqueeze.

TheEndless