PDA

View Full Version : apple lossless gapless



Hills
2007-01-20, 03:45
Was searching the forums but can't find a clear answer to my question.

Does Squeezebox (newest version, with newest version of slimserver) play apple lossless files without gap between tracks?

Thanks.

Eric Seaberg
2007-01-20, 20:50
It's working GREAT for me as long as my playback devices are set to NO LIMIT for bandwidth. As soon as I set the bandwidth limiting to anything where LAME has to encode to file, gapless disappears!!

Because of this, I've made sure all playback devices, i.e. Transporter and SB3, are wired ethernet and NOT wireless.

Hills
2007-01-21, 03:31
Thanks. OK, that is great. But i am not very happy about the need to have wired connections.. Do others here have the same experience?

Eric Seaberg
2007-01-21, 06:49
I didn't say I HAD to have wired... it will work wirelessly if I don't have any of my wireless powerbooks accessing the AirPort at the same time. There's only so much bandwidth to pass around!! If I only want to listen to tunes and do an occasional email check, wireless works great.

BTW, my Transporter is wired, mainly because I stream hi-bit rate DTS and AC3 surround files to it. My SB3 has the option to go bank-n-forth depending on the need at the time, and other wireless usage in the house.

Mark Lanctot
2007-01-21, 08:20
Thanks. OK, that is great. But i am not very happy about the need to have wired connections.. Do others here have the same experience?

No, probably 85% of users here are on wireless.

I've been able to play very high-bitrate files (24-bit, 96 kHz WAVs at 4608 kbps) without problems.

Robin Bowes
2007-01-21, 08:28
Mark Lanctot wrote:
> Hills;172552 Wrote:
>> Thanks. OK, that is great. But i am not very happy about the need to
>> have wired connections.. Do others here have the same experience?
>
> No, probably 85% of users here are on wireless.

Did you know that 87% of statistics are made up?

R.

Eric Seaberg
2007-01-21, 08:31
I should have mentioned that my wireless is 802.11b/g compatible. I have a 4-year old powerbook with 11b so my wireless bandwidth isn't as quick as some other users may have with 11g only.

I can get 5Mb wireless traffic doing the network test, BUT everything goes downhill when listening to music AND heavy internet usage on the wireless. Running WIRED was just my way of adding insurance. YMMV

Hills
2007-01-21, 09:19
Great, this sounds very good. Thanks for the replies.

Mark Lanctot
2007-01-21, 10:06
Mark Lanctot wrote:
> Hills;172552 Wrote:
>> Thanks. OK, that is great. But i am not very happy about the need to
>> have wired connections.. Do others here have the same experience?
>
> No, probably 85% of users here are on wireless.

Did you know that 87% of statistics are made up?

R.

It's 90% likely that they are. ;-)

Which is why I said 'probably'. It's an estimate based on what I see in the forum. There aren't too many people using wired connections. However it could also be that those people have no problems and don't post here, so who knows. It's safe to say the majority use wireless though.

Robin Bowes
2007-01-21, 11:19
Mark Lanctot wrote:
> It's safe to say the majority use wireless though.

I'm not sure where you get the figures to support that statement.

R.

aubuti
2007-01-21, 11:27
Mark Lanctot wrote:
> It's safe to say the majority use wireless though.

I'm not sure where you get the figures to support that statement.
Or even the casual (not causal) inference. Clearly there are a disproportionate number of posts re wireless because wireless is more problematic. I would guess that the majority of SBs are being used wired, but of course that's an empirical question.

Sounds like we need a poll thread -- or has one already been done on this?

Mark Lanctot
2007-01-21, 11:47
Well, gee, I wasn't expecting The Spanish Inquisition.

Surely we can agree that there are a "good number" of users using the Squeezebox wirelessly? And surely we can agree that a good number, like myself, experience few problems even with high-bitrate files?

Also note that Slim Devices/Logitech has quietly dropped the wired-only Squeezebox v3. While of course the wireless version can be used wired, surely this indicates something?

There still aren't many homes that have wired Ethernet in every room. I'd guess it's more popular in new homes in the U.S., but not everyone has a new home, and not everyone lives in the U.S. That massive popularity of wireless networking equipment has got to be some indication that not every home has an Ethernet network.

aubuti
2007-01-21, 11:53
Well, gee, I wasn't expecting The Spanish Inquisition.
No one expects The Spanish Inquisition!

Agreed on your other points. And dropping the wired-only has various benefits: simplifies production and distribution, and probably good for the margin-per-unit, too.

Mark Lanctot
2007-01-21, 11:59
No one expects The Spanish Inquisition!

"Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms..."

Good to see this thread's not all acrimonious then.

But yes, this has shaken a belief I had about the Squeezebox. I do agree that wired is more desireable and it would be nice to have the luxury but I don't and won't until I own my own home. Maybe not even then, I find the idea of fishing wires frightening and I'm too cheap to pay someone else to do it! Perhaps a poll is in order?

aubuti
2007-01-21, 12:01
There still aren't many homes that have wired Ethernet in every room. I'd guess it's more popular in new homes in the U.S., but not everyone has a new home, and not everyone lives in the U.S. That massive popularity of wireless networking equipment has got to be some indication that not every home has an Ethernet network.
Just saw your edit/addition. What you say is true, but it's also not a simple extrapolation. A lot of wireless networking is to reach rooms where users don't necessarily need audio systems (like me sitting at the dining table now with my wireless laptop, listening to the wired SB2 in adjacent kitchen). And as the demands of music streaming expose the weaknesses of wireless networking, it seems that there will be some boost to technologies like HomePlug.

Robin Bowes
2007-01-21, 12:01
aubuti wrote:
> Mark Lanctot;172668 Wrote:
>> Well, gee, I wasn't expecting The Spanish Inquisition.
> No one expects The Spanish Inquisition!

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is
surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are
fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are
fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical
devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons....
Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come
in again.

Mark Lanctot
2007-01-21, 12:11
Poll here:

http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=31930

I'm guessing I'll see two "wired" responses right away. ;-)

Robin Bowes
2007-01-21, 17:02
Mark Lanctot wrote:
> Poll here:
>
> http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=31930
>
> I'm guessing I'll see two "wired" responses right away. ;-)

Actually, I have a Transporter, and an SB3, both connected wirelessly.

And my g/f has inherited my SB2 - also connected wirelessly.

R.

Hills
2007-01-22, 03:56
Wow... a poll.. thanx

And does it make a difference what kind of lossless format (e.g. ALAC or FLAC) is used (on the server), i mean, regarding the bandwith required? I guess no.

Mark Lanctot
2007-01-22, 08:04
And does it make a difference what kind of lossless format (e.g. ALAC or FLAC) is used (on the server), i mean, regarding the bandwith required? I guess no.

Not really, there isn't a huge size difference between lossless formats. Expect ~1 Mbps.

There was a nice page out there with graphs but I can't find it now. This will give you an idea though:

http://members.home.nl/w.speek/comparison.htm

The difference between formats isn't very big, and keep in mind the new FLAC 1.1.3 achieves better compression than 1.1.2.

fredgoodman
2007-02-05, 09:48
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.