PDA

View Full Version : Gaps between songs in 6.5.1



oriordan
2007-01-08, 11:59
I recently upgraded to 6.5.1 (nightly build) to be able to use the iTunes update plug-in. Since the upgrade, I've noticed that songs seems to start with no gap between them which I don't think was the case on the official 6.5.0. I've confirmed that my Crossfade settings haven't changed and I can't find any other config setting to adjust this inter-song gap. Is this a change in 6.5.1 and if so is there a way to configure a gap between songs?

oreillymj
2007-01-08, 12:17
Gapless playback is a requested feature that's been implemented in 6.5.1
There should be a gap between songs that were not gapless on the CD although it may be shorter than on the original CD.

Since I have x-fading enabled, I don't know what the default gap is.

M3Rocket
2007-01-09, 04:32
You may be experiencing the transcoding truncation problem with the latest 6.5.1 releases since October of last year when gapless MP3 playback was introduced. Please vote for bug 4384 if appropriate: http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=4384

I can't use any of the latest versions at all since I use the transcoding feature to stream from home to the office. So I am stuck with the b10207. And there doesn't seem to be any progress on fixes with this bug. :(

servies
2007-01-10, 11:24
Let me chime in on this:
Songs should be played as they are on a cd.
Par example: When I'm listening to Pink Floyd's The Wall, There is no audible division between the songs. There should be no extra gaps between the songs.
I just switched from Slimserver version 6.5.0 to version 6.5.1 and at the moment what I hear is a very minute break between the songs, less than 1/10th of a second but it is audible, it's better than in version 6.5.0 but it's not completely gone yet...

andyg
2007-01-10, 11:43
For best gapless results you should really use FLAC or Ogg. For MP3's make sure they were encoded with LAME and that you do a full wipe and rescan to pick up the right gapless data.

servies
2007-01-11, 00:24
For best gapless results you should really use FLAC or Ogg. For MP3's make sure they were encoded with LAME and that you do a full wipe and rescan to pick up the right gapless data.
Hmm, I use Exact Audio Copy in combination with LAME.
But you handed a 'workaround' so for now I think I'll just redo the albums I want gapless in Ogg.

Malor
2007-01-11, 02:51
Gapless, from what I understand, is hard to do with MP3. It has to do with how the audio frames are constructed. If I understand correctly, the server has to monkey around and fill in the last frame or frames of the prior song with the first frames of the next, and I gather that process is error-prone. MP3 is *designed* for single tracks, so adding in gapless playback is a hack.

This is the biggest reason I use CUE with a single FLAC file for my library. Slimserver deals very nicely with this format. It guarantees gapless playback, because the entire CD is ripped as a single image.

When I need individual files for MP3 players, I use Foobar2K under Windows; it works beautifully with CUE/FLAC. Its mass extraction/conversion engine is the best I've seen on any platform, period. It'll convert pretty much anything to anything, it'll do a giant library all at once, and it will take advantage of all the cores you want to throw at it.

I do this as a two stage process; first I drag my music directories onto Foobar (it'll recurse an entire hierarchy at once) and have it compress to a single directory. This dumps all the MP3s in the same folder, with a number in front based on where they were in the playlist, which guarantees that all filenames will be unique. (You'd be surprised, for instance, just how many artists put Winter Wonderland as the third track in their Christmas albums. :))

It takes awhile to finish compression; on my quad-core Kentsfield, I compress VBR LAME at about 100x, but most machines are a lot slower. Once it's done, I clear the playlist and drag the new MP3 folder onto Foobar. I tell it to do a mass rename based on tags. This rebuilds the original directory hierarchy and sorts all the files into their proper places. It's nearly instant.

This is the best way I've found to manage a library... by storing CUE/FLAC images, you can generate any other format you need with very little effort.

servies
2007-01-11, 15:23
Gapless, from what I understand, is hard to do with MP3. It has to do with how the audio frames are constructed. If I understand correctly, the server has to monkey around and fill in the last frame or frames of the prior song with the first frames of the next, and I gather that process is error-prone. MP3 is *designed* for single tracks, so adding in gapless playback is a hack.
Hmm, that explains a lot. Winamp had the same problem till about a year ago. I used a plugin to solve the gap. Since version 5.X it played gapless (as far as I could tell), so I was under the impression that this was something still missing in the squeezebox/slimserver combination.
Just reripped and 'ogged' "Dark Side Of The Moon" and now it's gapless.
But I think I'm going to need another HD... 100+ albums left to do...

Uwe1966
2007-01-12, 01:42
Hi everybody,

ist there a special way to tag the files for gapless play? How does the software recognizes the fliles that have to be played with ore without gaps?

regards,
Uwe

JJZolx
2007-01-12, 02:47
Is there a special way to tag the files for gapless play? How does the software recognizes the fliles that have to be played with ore without gaps?

No special tagging is needed, and the software needn't recognize anything. It's just a matter of seemlessly playing successive tracks without inserting additional silence. If there's already a bit of silence between tracks, then some additional split-second of silence wont' be noticed. But when successive tracks have no silence (gap) betwen them, if the software can't play them without addding a gap, then it's noticable.

I'm not sure about other rippers, but to get the proper gaps between tracks, EAC will (by default) append the between-track gaps to the end of tracks. For instance, if when playing a CD in a CD player, if there are 3.5 seconds of silence between tracks 1 and 2, then track 1 will have that 3.5 second gap tacked onto it's end. On the other hand, if there's no silence between the tracks, then none will be added to track 1.

Uwe1966
2007-01-16, 05:28
Hi JJZolx,

thank you for your information.

Uwe

nickrt
2007-01-16, 12:46
Hi

Since upgrading to 6.5.1 (and maybe before that), nearly all my songs miss the last 5 seconds or so on playback - with the next song starting straight away.

I have a large library of MP3 (LAME) and Apple Lossless albums, and use the iTunes interface.

This playback problem occurs on every playlist or album that I play. I have checked server settings, re-booted, re-installed etc., but to no avail.

Is this a known problem - I thought it was a glitch that would be fixed, but it makes listening very frustrating.

Thanks for any help!

Nick

coffeebucket
2007-01-19, 05:16
For best gapless results you should really use FLAC or Ogg.

... which is exactly what I'm doing. Sure, there's technically no gap; but since upgrading from 6.3.1 to 6.5.1, the last 0.5 to 1 second of tracks within a FLAC image (with embedded cue sheet) are being truncated. Symptoms closely resemble those described in bug 1434 (http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434).

I understand we're a demanding bunch, and you do your best to strike a balance between new functionality and code maintenance, but how much regression testing is performed on a release before it's released to the public? I've just spent three hours attempting to troubleshoot this issue while trying to get "Gallery View" to work (with several library rescans, cache clears and debug switches) and I've come up empty handed.

My only recourse is to revert back to 6.3.1, and take claims of increased stability and resolved issues in future release versions with a grain of salt.

haunyack
2007-01-19, 05:39
[/QUOTE] I understand we're a demanding bunch, and you do your best to strike a balance between new functionality and code maintenance, but how much regression testing is performed on a release before it's released to the public? I've just spent three hours attempting to troubleshoot this issue while trying to get "Gallery View" to work (with several library rescans, cache clears and debug switches) and I've come up empty handed.

My only recourse is to revert back to 6.3.1, and take claims of increased stability and resolved issues in future release versions with a grain of salt.[/QUOTE]

I'll add that the support structure has major bugs as well.
Not to slam the hard working folks who must deal with myriad of problems Slimserver model presents, but I must say that my experience with tech support left me searching for my own work-around as they "could not replicate" the problem on their end.

Nice piece of hardware Squeezebox is...if only it worked as advertised.

p.s. - Apologies to coffeebucket for screwing up the quote.

slimdemage
2007-01-19, 11:43
haunyack,

I have been out of the Slim World for a while after I returned my Squeezebox. I thought the concept had potential, but like you I wound up feeling the product does not perform as advertised. My guess is they do not have a worthy development team. Just a guess, but it seems like they need more programmers, and maybe pay them more, and have them work more hours? I sense you are feeling the "void" and there is little more they can do. As a test I often try softsqueeze with the latest Slim Server builds (6.5.1). It does not play back music properly, and does some of the things it used to do a year ago, like skipping the first moments of a track and failing to playback gapless albums. I've tried these tests multiple times with completely different PC's, routers, wireless cards, and even the actual Squeezebox3. It still has potential, but just does not work properly. I would estimate the value of any of these products at around $50, considering the poorly developed server software. Once they get the software right they might have a solid hardware product. Apparently there are a lucky few who have these products working properly (or someone pays them to say so). You think?

Nostromo
2007-01-19, 12:04
Apparently there are a lucky few who have these products working properly (or someone pays them to say so). You think?
Reply With Quote

I was under the impression that it was the unlucky few who, unfortunately, didn't get it to work properly. Music playback works flawlessly for me. Now if Logitech paid me for saying so it would be great. :)

SteveEast
2007-01-19, 12:21
Both my SBs work fine - but then I would say that wouldn't I? Wouldn't want to lose those regular cheques from Logitech.

I wish!

Steve.

snarlydwarf
2007-01-19, 12:31
Apparently there are a lucky few who have these products working properly (or someone pays them to say so). You think?

Well over 70,000 tracks played (and scrobbled!) and I still play with my Squeezeboxes more than any other toy. So when do I get my check from Logitech? I want to fund some expansion so I have an excuse^h^h^h^h^h^hreason to buy more squeezeboxes.

(Now, back to Amazon to look for more CD's to buy.. only have 2 enroute, so I better order more.)

ModelCitizen
2007-01-19, 12:43
Pillock.
I've had five Squeezeboxen/Transporters and all have worked fine. All the ones owned by the five friends that saw mine and bought one all work fine too. It is certain that the very vast majority of people who own them have them working flawlessly too unless you think that only 30 have been sold and all owners have written to these forums.
MC


haunyack,
I have been out of the Slim World for a while after I returned my Squeezebox. I thought the concept had potential, but like you I wound up feeling the product does not perform as advertised. My guess is they do not have a worthy development team. Just a guess, but it seems like they need more programmers, and maybe pay them more, and have them work more hours? I sense you are feeling the "void" and there is little more they can do. As a test I often try softsqueeze with the latest Slim Server builds (6.5.1). It does not play back music properly, and does some of the things it used to do a year ago, like skipping the first moments of a track and failing to playback gapless albums. I've tried these tests multiple times with completely different PC's, routers, wireless cards, and even the actual Squeezebox3. It still has potential, but just does not work properly. I would estimate the value of any of these products at around $50, considering the poorly developed server software. Once they get the software right they might have a solid hardware product. Apparently there are a lucky few who have these products working properly (or someone pays them to say so). You think?

haunyack
2007-01-19, 12:44
haunyack,

I have been out of the Slim World for a while after I returned my Squeezebox. I thought the concept had potential, but like you I wound up feeling the product does not perform as advertised. My guess is they do not have a worthy development team. Just a guess, but it seems like they need more programmers, and maybe pay them more, and have them work more hours? I sense you are feeling the "void" and there is little more they can do. As a test I often try softsqueeze with the latest Slim Server builds (6.5.1). It does not play back music properly, and does some of the things it used to do a year ago, like skipping the first moments of a track and failing to playback gapless albums. I've tried these tests multiple times with completely different PC's, routers, wireless cards, and even the actual Squeezebox3. It still has potential, but just does not work properly. I would estimate the value of any of these products at around $50, considering the poorly developed server software. Once they get the software right they might have a solid hardware product. Apparently there are a lucky few who have these products working properly (or someone pays them to say so). You think?


slimdemage,

I would advise caution with your remarks...the trolls (fanboys) in these forums do not like it when opinions do not align with their own.

snarlydwarf
2007-01-19, 12:53
slimdemage,

I would advise caution with your remarks...the trolls (fanboys) in these forums do not like it when opinions do not align with their own.

Or we get annoyed that we are accused of accepting bribes without the benefit of such bribes.

Screw the pony: I want cash.

haunyack
2007-01-19, 13:06
Or we get annoyed that we are accused of accepting bribes without the benefit of such bribes.

Screw the pony: I want cash.

Touche'

Screw the pony?

snarlydwarf
2007-01-19, 13:12
http://forums.slimdevices.com/archive/index.php/t-13138.html amongst tons of others.

haunyack
2007-01-19, 13:21
Hey...just d/l & installed official 6.5.1.
Truncation problem seems to have gone bye-bye!
Possibly too early to tell but I'll stick my neck out and give a bravo to the dev team.
Things are looking up here in the land of webfoots.

snarlydwarf
2007-01-19, 13:30
yeah, right, you just want in on the money train!

haunyack
2007-01-19, 13:34
yeah, right, you just want in on the money train!


Now you're just beating a dead horse (pony)

snarlydwarf
2007-01-19, 13:37
beats feeding the damned thing. "free pony"... right... like feeding and stabling a pony is free?

I'm just tenderizing the meat, ponies are kinda tough.

Kevin O. Lepard
2007-01-19, 14:10
>You think?

No.
--
Kevin O. Lepard

Happiness is being 100% Microsoft free.

haunyack
2007-01-19, 14:26
Hey...just d/l & installed official 6.5.1.
Truncation problem seems to have gone bye-bye!
Possibly too early to tell but I'll stick my neck out and give a bravo to the dev team.
Things are looking up here in the land of webfoots.

Spoke to soon.
Truncation has reared it's ugly head once more.
Strange as it seems intermittent now as before (6.5.1 nightly) was constant.

OK..back to 6.3.1 I go - and I promise to give back the pony and the cash.

slimdemage
2007-01-19, 17:56
testing 6.5.1 with Pink Floyd - The Wall. I am still hearing gaps between tracks. Small but noticeable gaps of silence in between tracks. Files are MP3/LAME. These same files play fine normally but not from SlimServer 6.5.1. A fix for this would be great, don't you all agree?

andyg
2007-01-19, 18:33
Did you do a complete wipe and rescan, and are you using a SB2 or higher?

Mark Lanctot
2007-01-20, 10:09
A fix for this would be great, don't you all agree?

No.

a) I don't care about gapless playback.

b) If I did, I'd use a format that supported it like FLAC or Ogg, not with some workaround kludge like MP3 has to use.

coffeebucket
2007-01-21, 17:20
As the question wasn't directed at anyone in particular:

Did you do a complete wipe and rescan,Yes, several times

and are you using a SB2 or higher?SB3


No.

a) I don't care about gapless playback.

b) If I did, I'd use a format that supported it like FLAC or Ogg, not with some workaround kludge like MP3 has to use.
a) I do care about gapless playback

b) I am using a format that supports it.

Eric Seaberg
2007-01-21, 17:57
First off... I'm a Mac user, and FLAC hasn't been a good option for me. My library is ripped with iTunes using Apple Lossless and, as long as I DON'T re-encode to MP3/LAME (using bandwidth limiting), I have gapless playback JUST LIKE THE CD! Even AAC doesn't work, since it is a 'type' of MP3.

Since my network is fast enough, I can run my TP and SB3 at NO LIMIT and everything plays great. As soon as I kick in ANY kind of limiting, even 320kbps, there are breaks between tunes.

If I'm listening at my office and need to limit the bandwidth from my house via the internet, I can deal with the gaps.


My $.02

Stig Nygaard
2007-01-22, 13:14
Hi everybody,
is there a special way to tag the files for gapless play? How does the software recognizes the files that have to be played with or without gaps?

I'm confused. I've been searching the net on the topic, and it looks to me like you have to encode with lame using a special procedure to make this work. For me it looks like you have to encode all tracks in a contiguous set in one go to make this work. Something like

LAME --nogap <track1> <track2> <track3> <track4>...

You cannot get gapless playing when encoding the files individually as I understand when searching on the subject. Yet people seems to claim otherwise in this forum. Is the information I've found on the net out of date?

I think there's a second way using a complete diskimage and "cuesheets" when encoding the mp3-files, but I haven't seen anyone claim it can be done with individual encoding of the files... That is, except in this forum?...

andyg
2007-01-22, 13:16
Yeah that info is a bit outdated. LAME writes special info to the header describing the number of audio samples to drop from the front and back of the file. This allows any 2 files to be played together with no gaps. Just use LAME 3.90.3 or later and it's done for you automatically. In SlimServer 6.5.1, make sure you do a complete wipe and rescan because previous versions didn't scan mp3 files at the proper location to detect the gapless info.

probedb
2007-01-23, 07:20
You don't have to use the switch in LAME to produce gapless files it's been doing it automatically at least since 3.96.1. 3.71 is now the official version anyways.

It's not really a cludge. Rockbox supports gapless playback of MP3s, the shibatch mpg123 plugin for Winamp supports it as does the normal Winamp in_mp3 plugin I now believe?

It's a bit odd that SS needs a rescan of your library to support it. It's the decoder than should support it surely, not the library?

andyg
2007-01-23, 07:22
The reason is that SlimServer sends files to the player not starting at the beginning but at the start of the audio data, since there may be lots of tag data in front. This is partly to support the legacy players I believe. Anyway, previous versions had the offset value wrong so the LAME data was not sent to the decoder.

fredgoodman
2007-02-05, 09:51
Gapless play of apple lossless (ripped and encoded with Max 0.7 on Macintosh) with server 6.5.1 works for me with wired or wireless connections AS LONG AS MY TWO SB3'S ARE NOT SYNCHRONIZED. Also I do not have any bandwidth limit set.

It's a bit annoying to have to choose between gapless playback and sync, but what the heck: syncing is bound to take a little time.