View Full Version : UPNP/DLNA server for sqeeezebox?

2006-11-14, 18:53
Is it possible to get squeezebox to use a general media server. I want to se up a network with a few squeezeboxes and maybe some AV hardware. I dont want to run mutiple media servers on the one machine. I'm dont really want to go for the lower quality alternatives (M1000 Soundbridge). I've heard that slim server is pretty good put proprietory software puts me off purchasing squeezboxes.

2006-11-14, 19:43
Squeezebox requires Slimserver, it will not work with UPnP or any other server software. However, Slimserver is very far from proprietary (at least according to the definition on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary#Proprietary_software). You don't mention what other servers you'll be running, or why? Slimserver is good for all your music needs :)

2006-11-15, 04:20
Actually with the Rhapsody plugin enabled, Slimserver can see uPNP media servers running on the network. That's how it sends commands to Rhapsody.

Andy did some work to get Windows Media Connect working properly, but there's not a huge ROI in doing this if you have all your local music already in the Slim database.

And I haven't tested this since Window Media player removed Media connect from my machine, but in theory this should work.

Oh, also the player may still choke on DRM'd files.

2006-11-15, 04:20
I've got nothing against the software supplied its free after all. I've tried the software out with the softsqeeze and it seems ok.

My main goal it to host the server on a silent low power PC, I own a nslu2 but I dont think it will be powereful enough. I also want to put other hardware on to my network like a pinnacle showcentre or something similar. I just makes sence to run one media server on the PC instead of 2. Most other products seems to be UPNP compatable so why not squeezebox?

Am I the only one that thinks like this? I'm sure slim devices missing out by not making their product compatable with other software. If the squeezebox can be firware upgraded then I will wait for a while (in the hope they become UPNP compatable).

Could we have a poll on this subject Forum ops?

2006-11-15, 06:44
The massive advantage of using Slimserver rather than a standard uPNP server is customisation. You get a web frontened that can be tailored pretty much however you want it. It is also single purpose, it doesn't have compromised becuase of having to deal with different devices with different capabilities.

Do uPNP servers have an extensive range of plugins for them? AlienBBC is a good example of what is possible with SlimServer vs any-other-server.

I'm sure the SB3/Transporter is powerful enough these days to be able to do a lot of the things traditionally done by SlimServer. However if this happened no-one other than SD would be able to make changes to the software as it requires a $10,000 development kit to produce the firmware. As opposed to downloading from SVN and editing the Perl yourself (if you are that way inclined).

There is also masses of other functionality i'm sur eyou would loose if uPNP was used exclusively.

One last thing, SS isn't much of a resource hog, especially if it is streaming one of the native formats (MP3, FLAC, Ogg, WAV, etc). It does run quite happily on several little NAS units after all.

2006-11-15, 07:31
Let me jump in and say I run SlimServer on my main system, an old Athlon 1800-based WinXP setup with 1GB RAM. SS has not had any perceivable effect on the system's performance, even when serving music to three Squeezeboxes simultaneously (synch and unsynched).

2006-11-15, 07:37
Actually, to clarify my earlier post, the Squeezebox can only talk to Slimserver. It cannot talk directly to uPNP media servers.

However Slimserver can see uPNP servers on your network and will make the media shared by these available to the Squeezebox.

Mark Lanctot
2006-11-15, 08:11
Am I the only one that thinks like this? I'm sure slim devices missing out by not making their product compatable with other software. If the squeezebox can be firware upgraded then I will wait for a while (in the hope they become UPNP compatable).

This doesn't come up all that often. SlimServer, despite issues some users may have with it, is extremely powerful and capable. It does far more than UPnP - after all, the Squeezebox display is actually generated by SlimServer.

As it is now, the Squeezebox is a dumber client than most UPnP clients, it depends on the server to a much greater extent. But ironically, its CPU and firmware resources are often greater than many UPnP clients.

The question isn't can the Squeezebox be made UPnP compliant - it clearly has the resources and capability of being so, the question is, can a UPnP server supply what's required to operate a Squeezebox? Probably not, it would have to be so specialized, you might as well use SlimServer. Not too many UPnP servers are designed to draw their client's screen!

As funkstar mentions, perhaps some features can be moved into the Squeezebox itself - this would be a huge task though. And the Sqeezebox would not have the power for transcoding, AlienBBC and some of the more complex plugins. That's a very important feature of the product - because all the power is in the server, the player is extremely flexible and far-reaching changes can be made relatively easily and quickly. Most of that would be lost going to UPnP with SlimServer functionality in the Squeezebox.

However I've seen a brief mention that the Squeezebox firmware is getting crowded. So having a firmware that is both SlimServer and UPnP compliant might not be possible at this point. You could perhaps have an either/or.

Could we have a poll on this subject Forum ops?

You can create a poll the same way you created this thread. It's an interesting idea.

Slim Devices/Logitech makes money off the hardware, not off SlimServer. They've put a heavy investment into SlimServer over the years, but it's been all to advance the hardware capabilities. As I indicated, adding UPnP support and moving SlimServer functionality to the player might not be trivial, however, it may allow them to increase sales, which was the ultimate goal of the Logitech aquisition.

I would personally rather not see this. It would make the player much less flexible. As a lot of SlimServer functionality would be in the player, SlimServer would become just another UPnP server. It could remain open-source but there wouldn't be as much you could do with it, so development (especially by 3rd parties and the community) might stagnate. There'd be only so much you could do before having to go in and muck about with the firmware, which only a select few Slim Devices people can do.

2006-11-15, 08:20
To me the squeezebox solution is attractive precisely because it's *not* a UPnP box. If UPnP can be added without any other sacrifices then sure, no problem. But if you want a UPnP product then there are plenty of other solutions available. I own squeezeboxes because I find them to be far superior to UPnP products(for reasons mentioned elsewhere in this thread).