PDA

View Full Version : 6.2.2 doesn't play unprotected mp4 (aac) files.



funkahdafi
2006-05-21, 03:27
Hi,

another problem I am having here is that Slimserver 6.2.2 (windows) does not play my mp4 files through squeezbox3. These files have been created with foobar2000 using nero's AAC encoder plugin. They play just fine anywhere else.

Oh... the files ARE being imported to the library and tagging information is parsed as well. They just don't start to play.

Any thoughts?

ceejay
2006-05-21, 10:02
Do you have Quicktime installed? If not, you might add it...

Ceejay

funkahdafi
2006-05-21, 13:23
is Quicktime a must have installation?

ceejay
2006-05-21, 14:49
It is if you want to play AAC files, yes.

Ceejay.

kjg
2006-05-28, 07:13
The fact that scanning makes the server useless is, IMO, the number one
problem with SlimServer. I don't mind the length of time it takes to
scan, but I should be able to access the server and listen to the music
while this is occurring. I'd like to see this fixed before another
single feature goes in.

- Ken

funkahdafi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am very new to the Slim System. In fact I just installed a squeezbox3
> and slimserver on windows just a couple of days ago. first time.
>
> so here is a problem right away: slimserver needs several hours to scan
> my library (816 albums with 9443 songs by 225 artists). During that time
> the whole system becomes very unresponsive, slim.exe taking up 90-100%
> of the CPU. It gets so tough that I can't even log into the web
> interface anymore (so: no, I can not look at the debugging logs). The
> first couple of times I thought the software is choking on something
> and just crashes, but after like 2.5 hours it suddenly finished.
>
> Now... the REscan, which should take less time to my understanding, is
> taking just as long.
>
> There must be a bug or something in my music files that the server
> doesn't like.
>
> Any ideas? Any help appreciated.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>

ceejay
2006-05-28, 09:00
The fact that scanning makes the server useless is, IMO, the number one
problem with SlimServer. I don't mind the length of time it takes to
scan, but I should be able to access the server and listen to the music
while this is occurring. I'd like to see this fixed before another
single feature goes in.



Not quite sure how this post found its way into this thread, but never mind... the answer is in 6.5, when it gets finished - the use of MySQL is meant bring a lot of improvements, and the developers have just put the new "split scanner" code in, which also addresses this very point. 6.5 is unstable at the moment, so you need to be a little patient, but it is high on the priority list.

Ceejay

stinkingpig
2006-05-28, 10:02
On 5/28/06, Ken <sqz (AT) lemmingstothesea (DOT) com> wrote:
>
> The fact that scanning makes the server useless is, IMO, the number one
> problem with SlimServer. I don't mind the length of time it takes to
> scan, but I should be able to access the server and listen to the music
> while this is occurring. I'd like to see this fixed before another
> single feature goes in.
>
>
But it is fixed! Works for me at least, with 12,500 tracks on a busy server
running several other things.

I guess a sample size of 1 isn't so helpful.

So, if it's not working for you, there must be something different between
your library and mine. You have three choices:

a) Do no troubleshooting, complain about the problem, and wait for someone
else with the same problem to do the troubleshooting required to find what's
wrong.
b) Try a nightly to see if that's already happened.
c) Do the troubleshooting yourself. Look at the logfile, maybe turn on some
debug flags, and see what happened.
--
"I spent all me tin with the ladies drinking gin,
So across the Western ocean I must wander" -- traditional

dean
2006-05-28, 10:04
On May 28, 2006, at 7:13 AM, Ken wrote:

> The fact that scanning makes the server useless is, IMO, the number
> one problem with SlimServer. I don't mind the length of time it
> takes to scan, but I should be able to access the server and listen
> to the music while this is occurring. I'd like to see this fixed
> before another single feature goes in.

The 6.5 version of slimserver already has a separate process for
scanning, which means that the scanning will both be faster AND won't
impact the performance of the main process that controls the user
interface.

-dean

dfk
2006-05-28, 12:48
is Quicktime a must have installation?

You may want to look at this as an alternative to installing Quicktime

http://www.free-codecs.com/download/K_Lite_Codec_Pack.htm

kjg
2006-05-28, 20:02
Thank you! I'll pick up 6.5 right away :)

dean blackketter wrote:
>
> On May 28, 2006, at 7:13 AM, Ken wrote:
>
>> The fact that scanning makes the server useless is, IMO, the number
>> one problem with SlimServer. I don't mind the length of time it takes
>> to scan, but I should be able to access the server and listen to the
>> music while this is occurring. I'd like to see this fixed before
>> another single feature goes in.
>
> The 6.5 version of slimserver already has a separate process for
> scanning, which means that the scanning will both be faster AND won't
> impact the performance of the main process that controls the user
> interface.
>
> -dean

dean
2006-05-29, 08:55
Ok, but do note that 6.5 is still unstable. Check out the other
threads on the beta forum about it's current state.


On May 28, 2006, at 8:02 PM, Ken wrote:

> Thank you! I'll pick up 6.5 right away :)
>
> dean blackketter wrote:
>>
>> On May 28, 2006, at 7:13 AM, Ken wrote:
>>
>>> The fact that scanning makes the server useless is, IMO, the
>>> number one problem with SlimServer. I don't mind the length of
>>> time it takes to scan, but I should be able to access the server
>>> and listen to the music while this is occurring. I'd like to see
>>> this fixed before another single feature goes in.
>>
>> The 6.5 version of slimserver already has a separate process for
>> scanning, which means that the scanning will both be faster AND
>> won't impact the performance of the main process that controls the
>> user interface.
>>
>> -dean
>
>

stinkingpig
2006-06-22, 23:20
On 6/22/06, Granmo <Granmo.29te4n1150998001 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
wrote:
>
>
> I just got a Squeezebox and am amazed at how long it takes to scan or
> recan music. I have taken out every file or playlist that could
> possibly be the culprit and it hasn't made any difference.


Based on what? Use the d_scan debug function to find culprits.

What I did
> find that might have made some difference, though I am not positive,
> was to point the search to a less specific target. I had it going to
> \\NAS\share\music and changed it to just \\NAS\share. It actually has
> to search MORE folders, none of which contain music, but it seemed to
> go faster. Though "faster" is relative. It is still extraordinarily
> slow. Is there a fix for this, or something in the works?
>
>
This seems improbable. Also, some quantitative information about fast, slow,
number of songs, and the hardware in question would be helpful. If you've
filled a terabyte NAS with MP3s and are using a low-power EPIA to scan it,
your performance will not be something I'd call good, though there are
people doing just that quite happily. Apparently they do something else
during the scan, like sleeping or going outside or something :)
--
"I spent all me tin with the ladies drinking gin,
So across the Western ocean I must wander" -- traditional