PDA

View Full Version : DLNA Compliance?



MarkH
2005-11-17, 20:37
Just wondering if a future version of SlimServer will be DLNA compliant (digital media server).

dean
2005-11-17, 21:36
On Nov 17, 2005, at 7:37 PM, MarkH wrote:
> Just wondering if a future version of SlimServer will be DLNA
> compliant
> (digital media server).

Possibly. It really depends on the demand.

russ_taylor
2006-03-06, 06:50
I've just bought a denon avr-4306 and would love to ba able to use my slimserver to feed music to it. I'm saddled with Windows Media Connect and it's pants :o(

michael_c
2006-06-11, 09:06
Hi,

Any news in this area? Will it be compliant in a near future?

Thanks
Michael

wr420
2006-07-18, 09:26
Just got a Denon AVR-4306 and would love for it to talk to Slimserver. Is there somewhere to vote for a feature request?

Thanks Matt

andyg
2006-07-18, 09:51
DLNA just uses a UPnP server, right? You could run a lightweight UPnP server such as gmediaserver and point it to your music directory.

wr420
2006-07-18, 13:16
Sounds like a plan. Do you think there would be any problem with runing SS and Gmediaserver on the same box. Dedicated, P4, 512megs, 60,000 tracks, minumal services, no X.
Gmeida seems very light from what I read (single exececutable). I'm new to the UPNP thing but looks like gmedia just allows for the searching of directorys and listing of files with none of the other fancier features of SS.(DB, search etc..)
As far as file formats go, in the UPNP senerio, would the server take care of any transcoding or is it up to the client to handle file formats.

Thanks
matt

andyg
2006-07-18, 13:22
Yes you should be able to run gmediaserver on the same box as SlimServer. It is very light, it gives you a directory tree and URLs for each item. It doesn't transcode and seems to only support mp3. There are many other UPnP servers out there that probably have more features.

JimB
2006-07-22, 04:30
Twonkyvision.

http://www.twonkyvision.de/index.html

Linux64
2007-05-28, 01:59
Last week the Playstation 3 firmware 1.80 was released. Among other features, the PS3 is now a DLNA client.

It would be great if Slimserver could be a DLNA server for my library of 8000+ FLAC files.

Since today, the PS3 doesn't support FLAC but does support WAV, Slimserver would need to do on-the-fly decoding of the FLAC files.

Many thanks!
(Proud owner of two Squeezebox v3)

autopilot
2007-05-28, 02:47
Have a look at www.tversity.com (UPNP). I run it along side SS on my modest PC perfectly fine (i stream to my PDA also).

oreillymj
2007-05-28, 08:36
And windows Media player 11 contains the functionality previously in Windows Media connect.

Adding Music/Photo's/Video to the Windows Media Library and enabling sharing in options results in those files being made available over the network.

Uncle Mike
2007-05-28, 08:52
Last week the Playstation 3 firmware 1.80 was released. Among other features, the PS3 is now a DLNA client.

It would be great if Slimserver could be a DLNA server

I have to add that this would be an excellent thing to have happen - my TS101 + SlimServer would make for an excellent solution to stream to the PS3 in the living room, with the Squeezebox still serving my tunes in my bedroom.

Dickie
2007-09-06, 06:29
Hi All,

I am also hoping there will be a DLNA update for the Squeeze box as I have a Linkstation LIVE which is DLNA certified and would love to listen to my music with the PC having to be on!!

Cheers

Dickie

P.S. I have looked at installing Slimserver onto my linkstation and it seems very complicated

funkstar
2007-09-06, 06:47
I am also hoping there will be a DLNA update for the Squeeze box as I have a Linkstation LIVE which is DLNA certified and would love to listen to my music with the PC having to be on!!
Don't hope too much as it isn't going to happen. It is completely contradictory to the slim device philosophy of the SqueezeBox.

andyg
2007-09-06, 06:51
But no reason a plugin can't do it! Err, nevermind, you're talking about firmware support for DLNA, yes that will never happen. Thought you were talking about server-side support for non-SB devices.

funkstar
2007-09-06, 06:57
But no reason a plugin can't do it! Err, nevermind, you're talking about firmware support for DLNA, yes that will never happen. Thought you were talking about server-side support for non-SB devices.
Heehee.

I can't imagine that turning SS into a DNLA compliant media server would be rocket science.

bpa
2007-09-06, 07:04
can't imagine that turning SS into a DNLA compliant media server would be rocket science.


I think you have it the wrong way around - Dickie wanted the SB to use DLNA compliant servers because many NAS now comes with DLNA servers. This would be a fat client and not a slim client - big architectural change.

funkstar
2007-09-06, 11:09
I think you have it the wrong way around - Dickie wanted the SB to use DLNA compliant servers because many NAS now comes with DLNA servers. This would be a fat client and not a slim client - big architectural change.
Yes i know all that, and thats what i already said.

I was just expanding what Andy said in the post before mine.

Burt_Harris
2007-12-23, 14:32
OK, this thread seems to back and forth about what DLNA role(s) it's talking about.

In plain terms: I'm looking for a device, perhaps something like a Squeezebox. I've got music served up on an existing Windows Media Player infrastructure, and I'm planning on installing a Windows Home Server over Christmas. I wan't something kitchen (stereo already in place.) In DLNA terms, I think I want a PLAYER and CONTROLLER. I don't want to install more software on the PCs.

Funkstar & AndyG don't give me much hope that Squeezebox will ever do what I'm looking for. OK, I can look elsewhere, but I'm interested in what's behind it. What is this philosophy that's prevented this?

Will the relationship between Slim Devices and Logitec (a DLNA member) change this?

snarlydwarf
2007-12-23, 14:36
DLNA provides a mere subset of what is available in Slimserver...

I would think "providing less functionality" would be low on the list of things people want.

pfarrell
2007-12-23, 14:42
. What is this philosophy that's prevented this?


The SqueezeBox is a slim device. That was the name of the company before Logitech joined the party. The SqueezeBox is really dumb, all the brains are in the SlimServer (aka SqueezeCenter).

I can't figure out from the dlna.org site what it really means to be DLNA compliant.

If there is a market, I'm sure Logitech will have something. It might not be a squeezebox.

JJZolx
2007-12-23, 15:18
Will the relationship between Slim Devices and Logitec (a DLNA member) change this?

Good question, but it's not going to be answered by Logitech in these forums and it's unable to be answered by end users. Existing Squeezeboxes aren't likely to be made DLNA clients because of limited memory and CPU power, but that doesn't mean future products won't go there.

thomsens
2008-01-07, 09:16
The real issue is that SD's business model is to give away the server and charge for the player. I would guess from a market perspective that a player is a player and the fact that the SB/Transporter are probably better audio components is lost on the majority of folks buying these products. So, the value is therefore in the server software which is where the rub is. SD doesn't charge for the server, so if they made it DLNA compliant (I'm sure easy enough to do), I could buy a Roku and use SC for free to control it since the other DLNA server products in the market stink. Then SD would be in the business for free. The SB/Transporter supporting DLNA probably makes more business sense for SD because at least they could still sell players - but clearly it wouldn't make much sense for someone to buy one only to use it with a DLNA server today - but it could in the future. In my opinion, SD can't ignore this issue. They will probably have to dance with that devil at some point to stay in the game. It's risky, but ignoring it would probably limit their success over the long run.

It would probably be ideal for someone to build a plug-in to provide DLNA client support off of SC. That way SC can be the center of a user's audio streaming world and eventually folks will realize the SD products give them more functionality than their DLNA product does which might bring revenue back to SD. I just bought a TV and an AV Receiver that both require DLNA, so now I'm evaluating DLNA servers. SD better have a strategy for integration with DLNA or have tremendous value add to justify remaining an island IMO. DLNA has standards and pictures/video on it's side...I'm sure the servers will improve with time as well. I don't necessarily like running a single server for all (since all implementations get clunky with all of that going one), but it could become compelling over time.

Paul Webster
2008-01-07, 09:56
It would probably be ideal for someone to build a plug-in to provide DLNA client support off of SC.
SC (and SlimServer) is can already act as UPnP client ... isn't that the same as DLNA.
It doesn't expose the full functionality of SC but it does mean that you can select music off your UPnP server using the SB remote.

radish
2008-01-07, 10:23
SC (and SlimServer) is can already act as UPnP client ... isn't that the same as DLNA.
It doesn't expose the full functionality of SC but it does mean that you can select music off your UPnP server using the SB remote.

I think people are looking for it to be a uPnP server rather than client.

thomsens
2008-01-07, 12:18
I think people are looking for it to be a uPnP server rather than client.

Yes - I don't know the terminology, but I thought the context would make it more obvious. Slimserver should serve Rokus and the like...whatever functionality that is. That way, my AV receiver, my TV and my SB/Transporter can be clients of SC. Otherwise I have to run 2 servers and as more clients get added to my network, and the DLNA stuff matures, the DLNA server becomes more strategic to me and I potentially start looking at replacing the SC server (although my sunk cost in SB/Transporter will help keep them alive). I'd prefer for SD to be able to control the other devices due to it's current functionality and I'd probably be compelled to maintain an "audio only" server solution if it did. I'm not sold that you have to have one server for audio, video and pictures too. But that's primarily because the current options for that stink. The fact is that you need focus on each of those areas for their unique applications, but all servers tend to treat them the same. The one that does a good job at all three could really take some share...it could also drive your client decision over time.

I, like many on this forum, am willing to pay more and go through some level of pain to get the audio quality that SD provides, but I do have a limit to the amount of complexity I'll take on without obvious benefit. For now, an SC server is very beneficial and the players are some of the best out there. As time goes on, the DLNA servers will improve and high-quality players will be common. SD will have to have made some smart moves. The more embedded they are in my home media network, the better for them IMO. Right now, it's a stovepipe for SD audio.

BTW - I don't really understand the difference between a DLNA server and UPnP either, but hopefully this still makes sense.

thomsens
2008-01-07, 12:19
I think people are looking for it to be a uPnP server rather than client.

Yeah - I actually don't really understand when I'd ever use the feature it has today. All music in my house is consolidated on my NAS, which SC points to.

Zaragon
2008-01-07, 14:12
OK, this thread seems to back and forth about what DLNA role(s) it's talking about.

In plain terms: I'm looking for a device, perhaps something like a Squeezebox. I've got music served up on an existing Windows Media Player infrastructure, and I'm planning on installing a Windows Home Server over Christmas. I wan't something kitchen (stereo already in place.) In DLNA terms, I think I want a PLAYER and CONTROLLER. I don't want to install more software on the PCs.

Funkstar & AndyG don't give me much hope that Squeezebox will ever do what I'm looking for. OK, I can look elsewhere, but I'm interested in what's behind it. What is this philosophy that's prevented this?

Will the relationship between Slim Devices and Logitec (a DLNA member) change this?

Burt in some ways you can get the best of both worlds. The windows home server is a uPnP device, ie it will serve to devices that support that standard. You can also install the SqueezeCentre or SqueezeServer on the Home Server. By pointing it at exactly the same music share you can stream to SB devices. That's how I'm running mine now.

OK I don't know the full capabilities of uPNP devices but the ones I've played with haven't had anything like the capabilities of the SB server/players. But you are able to use the same music library and it doesn't cost you a penny more.

You won't need to install software on any of the PCs as you can either user the Windows Media Player via uPNP or network share. SoftSqueeze also really isn't hard to install and it offers an identical user interface to the hardware devices which is great for non technical users.

If you have any other uPnP servers around you can also get the SqueezeServer to access those aswell so your SqueezeBoxes/Duet receiver can also play from Windows Media Connect servers.

sander
2008-01-07, 23:00
The primary benefit to Logitech as I see it would be more people using Squeezecenter and possibly more 3rd party development on server optimization. It's also a "gateway drug" for people to get an idea of what the clients are capable of.

The user benefits would be people who have Slim/Squeeze/whatever players and other generic UPnP players wouldn't have to deal with multiple servers with varying comprehension of tags/covers and such.

UPnP AV/DLNA is basically a browsing protocol, but Twonky and others have shown by interfacing it to a database instead of a simple directory structure it can actually be quite flexible. In the long run I like to see database servers/protocols over simple file servers.

Anyway one more vote for DLNA and DAAP too. Firefly supports both.

livelock
2008-01-14, 18:09
I am currently not very amused due to SB3's lack of DLNA ability.
Maybe SC should be able to serve DLNA or not, I don't care. BUT SB3/Transporter should be able to interact with those DLNA server devices.
Be it a Fritz.Box router with attached USB, or be it a Linkstation Pro (on which I had SC running for a while, but performance of the SC is terrible) or a MediaCenter.
This would greatly enhance SB's integration factor into different environments.

ps. Not everone wants to have a powerful enough dedicated server running SC.

Ben Sandee
2008-01-14, 20:09
On Jan 14, 2008 7:09 PM, livelock <
livelock.337dmn1200359401 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:

>
> I am currently not very amused due to SB3's lack of DLNA ability.


You bought the wrong device, get over it. Sell your SB3 (very high resale
value) and get on with your life.

Ben

msherman
2008-01-15, 08:21
livelock wrote:
> ps. Not everone wants to have a powerful enough dedicated server
> running SC.

Not everyone wants to buy the squeezebox, then.

- Marc

Mark Lanctot
2008-01-15, 08:52
ps. Not everone wants to have a powerful enough dedicated server running SC.

A 700 MHz PIII you can get for $200 (or for free out of a dumpster!) sure isn't considered powerful these days yet it will run SC7.

It doesn't have to be dedicated either, I've used my everyday desktop for it for years without issues. Presumably you used something to type that forum post, why can't you use that?

renevk
2008-12-21, 15:18
Any news on DLNA compliancy? It will be nice that Squeezecenter will stream audio to a DLNA device such as Denon, Pioneer receivers.

flytox
2008-12-22, 04:41
DLNA/upNp, compliance of Sc means the end of sb/transporter. Some amp/receiver could display the tags and the integrated dac provide conversions to the amp.

agillis
2008-12-22, 07:31
I'm going to add DLNA support to VortexBox. That way it will be easy to use with other DLNA devices such as PS3 and receivers that use DLNA. My goal is to have support for almost ant device.

This is the list of protocols I want to support.

SMB - widnows files sharing
AppleTalk - for OSX
DLNA - for all DLNA devices, Windows Media player, etc
NFS - For linux Boxes and almost anything else, Solaris etc.
DAAP = for iTunes and Roku Soundbridge

Any other protocols I need to support? My goal is that 100% of media player will be able to access your music collection.

funkstar
2008-12-22, 12:37
Any other protocols I need to support? My goal is that 100% of media player will be able to access your music collection.
Well, SlimProto obviously.

agillis
2008-12-22, 16:54
VortexBox runs the latest version of Squeezecnter so it already support Slimproto by default. Any other protocols VortexBox should support?

Aesculus
2008-12-26, 09:57
I have a extensive SB network (6 clients) and also run Twonky to my Denon AVP. I also have the Denon hooked up to a SBR so it can participate in the SC synching etc for whole house audio. Plus the UI on the Denon and its remote require a fairly technical person and is not easy to use.

It would be nice if SC could fullfill the same role as Twonky and also synch the DNLA players with the SC players. Not sure if DNLA provides a synching feature.

pippin
2008-12-26, 15:37
DLNA provides pretty much no features at all other than defining some access protocols.
This is WHY SC is different (and better). Look at Sonos for comparison, they also use the UPnP server just as a data source and do all the sync and control stuff within their own proprietary architecture.

W1NDRUSH
2009-01-10, 03:38
I have a fairly converluted way of getting to the SC via DLNA hardware.

If you have a DLNA Denon Amp, (which can only play MP3 up to 320K) You can use the remote streaming from the Amp to SC, http://XXX.com:9000/stream.mp3. A not overly elegant solution, but it works for me.

My setup

Denon 3808 > internet > my SC Mp3 stream > back to house !
They eventually sync with the SB3's i have locally so we have SB3 streams throughout.

thomsens
2009-01-10, 11:33
DLNA/upNp, compliance of Sc means the end of sb/transporter. Some amp/receiver could display the tags and the integrated dac provide conversions to the amp.

Isn't that threat real regardless? From my standpoint, SD needs to figure out how to be the default server for all audio (and all media in the future I suppose), otherwise they will remain a stovepipe proprietary solution with limited appeal to the greater consumer base.

SD needs to build a plan in which they take the "risk" of adding a bridge between the SC functionality and providing DLNA server function for non-SD devices. That way they stay in the center of the audio home universe with SC, but now it's game on to figure out how to convince consumers that SB clients are easier to use, sound better, and are an overall better value. It may not be an easy road to navigate, but the Ciscos of the world are going to continue coming out of the woodwork and most will converge on a standards approach in the future. It's only a matter of time before you can build a compelling and very usable system completely upon standards - maybe Cisco just did.

It was fine in the days when SD could sell a few units and make a living, but I'm sure Logitech has much higher expectations on SD's role in the future of audio in the home, so they have to act. Saying "it depends on demand" makes no sense if you are using the SD forums for the input. I think the requirement is created by the need to remain relevant over the long run. I doubt many aspire to be a niche player, they just come to terms with it when it happens.

Edit: BTW, I don't know the right business model obviously - that's their problem. My problem is that I've spent over $3K with them and I don't want bricks on my hands. It might be as simple as charging for the DLNA plug-in - who knows?

CatBus
2009-01-10, 12:24
My problem is that I've spent over $3K with them and I don't want bricks on my hands.

There is zero risk of that. If Mountain View gets struck by a comet and every trace of SlimDevices is burnt to a crisp, SqueezeCenter would still be actively updated with new capabilities because it's open source (currently there's no need for decentralized development, but there's absolutely nothing stopping it). Your devices will only become bricks if the hardware fails.

Heck, DLNA proxies could be added by the community in the post-Mountain View apocalypse too, if there was enough demand and a coder willing and able to do it.

That's one of the reasons why I went with Slim over the other solutions. Slim devices are actually LESS likely to become bricks than their competition, not more.

wildgoose
2009-01-29, 16:50
I am looking into buying a player such as the SB to play CDs that I have ripped to the HD as flac files. If SB can act as a DLNA client and can receive streams from other DLNA servers, be it a fully featured computer, or a simple NAS box, then it would make my decision to get the SB much easier.

I don't really care about SC. It's just a piece of software running on the computer that is needed to run the SB. I am NOT asking for the other way around, updating SC to support DLNA clients. Why would I do that? It's not like SC is the best piece of software ever. ;) It's a server written in perl, it's big, its slow.

The key point is, SB-SC talks to one another using a non standard protocol, while the rest of the industry is standardizing on this DLNA stuff. If the SB, where Logitech makes its money from, can work with DLNA servers, then it will make the device more useful as there will be more and more DLNA devices in the future that SB can interact with (ok just play music from). Otherwise, the SB will forever be tied to the SC running on a PC, and that just seems too limiting.

For example, if the SB can be a DLNA client, then it no longer depends on the computer running SC. I can simply leave the NAS box (many supports DLNA stream) and SB running to listen to my music, without leaving my computer on 24x7.

Leaving the computer on 24x7 is not a big deal for a lot of people, but it is a big deal for the majority of non-geek people. I am using a SB proof of concept at home using a desktop and a laptop wirelessly (I really like it). But my wife keeps asking me, "why I need to leave the computer on to listen to music?" Personally I also prefer to turn the computer off if I can. This is one of the appeal of the Sonos. I have the option of using a NAS and keep the computer out of it. I want to use the computer to do the work of setting up the device and ripping music to NAS, but I want it OFF when I am just listening to music. (Let's not get into the argument that NAS is a computer. By the same argument, everything you have is a computer, your TV, your receiver, your DVR..)

If DLNA becomes the standard, then it will only be a matter of time before SB supports it. It's better to do it earlier than later. Think about it, 5 years from now, when all TVs or receivers or game consoles or whatever starts to support DLNA, and DLNA server software on computers becomes better and better and NAS and receivers universally supports it. Who's gonna buy SB?

CatBus
2009-01-29, 17:05
Think about it, 5 years from now, when all TVs or receivers or game consoles or whatever starts to support DLNA, and DLNA server software on computers becomes better and better and NAS and receivers universally supports it. Who's gonna buy SB?

Me, and anyone else who needs something better than DLNA. Or was that one of those rhetorical questions? ;)

Metazargo
2010-05-30, 10:25
It can combine (pair) playing zones into one music stream; the only competitor to Sonos.

It provides easy remote control between local SS and online service for internet radios with SC or iPeng.

It let's define the used separator (delimiter) of tags; i.e. semicolon, default of many music managers as MediaMonkey.


Nevertheless, it would great, especially the last benefit, would be available for any UPnP/DLNA player (receiver) I got, especially for video streamer (DAC) or my beloved kitchen and workshop radios where I still want to have DAB+ reception on board.

Metazargo
2010-08-04, 14:33
OK, I gave up my DAB+ kitchen radio against a Squeezebox Radio.

snarlydwarf
2010-08-04, 15:10
OK, I gave up my DAB+ kitchen radio against a Squeezebox Radio.

Now to see how long before it breeds.

Squeezeboxes are Tribbles.

raldo
2010-08-10, 07:48
I think there is some confusion in this thread wrt. DLNA, upnp, etc. As far as I can see, several issues are being discussed in parallel which somewhat confuses things.

The following info on this issue was snagged from Jriver Mediacenter's Wiki (http://wiki.jrmediacenter.com/index.php/DLNA)

-> in principle, upnp is contained within DLNA. There are 4 different types of DLNA devices:
1. DMS -- Digital Media Server -- where the media resides
2. DMP -- Digital Media Player -- where the media is played
3. DMR -- Digital Media Renderer -- where media is played, but with ability to respond to a controller
4. DMC -- Digital Media Controller -- software control of the renderer -- functions as a remote
------------

As far as I understand, a SB is similar to a DMP in that it can browse and play upnp supplied playlists/libraries. This ability is delivered to the SB through a SB Server plugin.

Currently, the SB Server cannot act as a DMS, for me no problemo since I use JRiver mediaCenter which can act as a DMS. WMP, etc. can also act as DMSes. I don't see any arguments in this thread why SB Server should act as a DMS.

However, a feature which would be extremely useful is for each SB to act as a DMR. I.e. other applications on the network could direct streams to the SBes. This is what Microsoft calls "Play to". I think this is what people in this thread mean by "DLNA Client".

As noted earlier in this thread: Being able to "Play To" an SB, could be acieved in two ways:
(1) Implement DLNA DMR in the SB. As noted somewhere in this thread: probably not possible (due to HW) or desirable by Logitech.
(2) Implement DLNA DMR in the SB Server. As a plugin.

Option (2), DLNA DMR (Play to) implemented in the SB Server seems to be the only solution.

Edit:
I'm don't currently own any SBes, but I'd buy several immediately if DLNA "play to" became supported. This is the main reason I didn't buy in the first place and I did research the products thoroughly (SB Server on my WHS, softsqueeze on my laptop etc).

My "use case" was two living room zones controlled my JRiver Media Center. One zone: My HTPC (with 5.1 surround amplifier). A Second zone: also in the living room: An SB amplifier connected to active loudspeakers. Additionally, several zones: Outside, kitcen, bathrooms, all with active loudspeakers. A Duet controller could also be used for control. MC Would sync all etc.

Metazargo
2010-08-16, 12:05
Thanks for reminding the DLNA standard, better said idea here.

In a way SB is DMS (SB Server), DMR (Radio, Touch, Boom... especially the receiver), DMP (Radio, Touch, Boom...) and DMC (Controller and of course iPeng).

The good thing, Squeezebox really works! Although only for music.

And as said the SB server is better, flexible, proofed then many DLNA or better said UPNP ready media servers.

So why adding UPNP to the server? Just for the freedom to use other playing devices. But I fear that the market, where Squeezeboxes make the wheel go round, maybe wouldn't understand that.

MrSinatra
2010-08-16, 12:53
i recall someone (andrewfg maybe?) posting something called whitebear or close to that, which supposedly let DLNA devices use SBS or something along those lines... so foggy now...

but maybe it can help someone here, (search the forums). i'd be interested to know if anyone get their DLNA devices talking to SBS via whitebear or whatnot.

Metazargo
2010-08-16, 12:53
My "use case" was two living room zones controlled my JRiver Media Center. One zone: My HTPC (with 5.1 surround amplifier). A Second zone: also in the living room: An SB amplifier connected to active loudspeakers. Additionally, several zones: Outside, kitcen, bathrooms, all with active loudspeakers. A Duet controller could also be used for control. MC Would sync all etc.

I consider systems like JRiver as management software. Like with embedded systems, today typically video players with included HD and media server, you don't get any good results, outside a computer or a television screen.

I.e. I manage my music data stored on a NAS with MediaMonkey. It's also possible to link iTunes to the same network share, without doing any harm (make the right settings) to the music data. The NAS, a QNAP also runs a Squeezebox server and for convenience also a TwonykMedia server a UPNP/DLAN DMS which serves photos and videos to our TV, but also to the iPhone with PlugPlayer.

There are two key elements in such an installation:
One is the remote controller where we use iPeng on our iPhones; that's really user friendly and quick. Just control music while you have guests without any hustle! OK, if my iPhone is away, the SB Controller let me do the same, half as fast as with iPeng.

The second is the NAS with the media servers. There it is important, that I have a second NAS which makes a complete backup of all data. Even less for the music, but all other data, especially our photos. In the morning the NAS is off, and I switch my kitchen radio to mysqueezbox.com.

raldo
2010-08-16, 13:17
I consider systems like JRiver as management software. Like with embedded systems, today typically video players with included HD and media server, you don't get any good results, outside a computer or a television screen.

I.e. I manage my music data stored on a NAS with MediaMonkey. It's also possible to link iTunes to the same network share, without doing any harm [...}
True, JRiver is a manager, and the best there is. It also has a pretty good big screen mode which is the base for one of my use cases.



There are two key elements in such an installation:
One is the remote controller where we use iPeng on our iPhones;

That's similar to my other use case, but I don't own an Iphone.

But that's beyond the point of my post. Being "similar to" the various types of DLNA units doesn't solve my request. I'm asking for an implementation of DLNA "play to" or DLNA Digital Media Renderer, if you like.

Such an implementation would just make the SB units more versatile since it would comein addition to the existing infrastructure. I'm not arguing it should replace the existing interfaces.

MrSinatra
2010-08-19, 12:51
http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=80632