PDA

View Full Version : Squeezebox with 2Gb on board memory.



mudlark
2007-02-05, 03:45
I've just had a think about what I would enjoy in the next squeezebox.

I really like the size and design of the device at present. Adding a large hard drive would really mess up the concept. That would be for a transporter type device.

what I would really like would be an on board memory chip to which you could "save" say 2Gb of Flac files from a playlist constructed using either the computer web interface or the hand control. Another idea would be for a random facility which would upload a 2 Gb playlist from the hard drive. That would be about 4 hours worth of music. enough for any evenings listening and the main storage source could be turned off or the server could be turned off. The benefits would include a sleep function that wouldn't rely on a running PC.

If this is a good and original idea could Logitech send me a large amount of money.
regards,
mike.

aubuti
2007-02-05, 05:58
There was a fairly long -- and somewhat acrimonious -- thread along these lines a month or two back. Then I think the idea was more towards putting a USB port on the SB so that one could hook up an external hard drive. Adding storage to the SB isn't enough, because you would still need to do something to put the server functions on the SB, which in its present state is just a slim/dumb client. That would mean beefing up the processor, installing an OS capable of running slimserver (or something like slimserver), etc.

Those aren't impossible challenges, but it is a pretty fundamental re-design of what an SB is. It would involve a lot more than just slapping in 2GB of flash memory.

smarjan
2007-02-05, 08:47
Adding storage to the SB isn't enough, because you would still need to do something to put the server functions on the SB, which in its present state is just a slim/dumb client. That would mean beefing up the processor, installing an OS capable of running slimserver (or something like slimserver), etc.


Has anyone tried to run SlimServer on pocketPC or simmilar?

CCRDude
2007-02-05, 09:21
Since Slimserver is a ... nuisance when running on a < 300 MHz NAS device, I doubt that a PocketPC would be sufficient ... nor beefing up the CPU under say 800 MHz (which I wouldn't want, too much power consumption, too much heat, ...) would make sense.

mudlark
2007-02-05, 09:51
Dash, nevermind!

Thanks for the information regarding why this idea isn't feasible.

All the best,
mike.

I should say that the SB3 i have has really improved access to my music. The best 200 i've spent on my system.

Ben Sandee
2007-02-05, 14:47
On 2/5/07, mudlark <mudlark.2ljk1n1170694501 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Dash, nevermind!
>
> Thanks for the information regarding why this idea isn't feasible.


It surely *is* feasible for future hardware -- it just isn't possible with
current hardware.

Ben

tyler_durden
2007-02-05, 20:47
The SB has a moderately large buffer in it to prevent gaps in playback when the network gets busy, etc. What if that buffer were increaded by adding a 2GB USB thumbdrive? The SB would simply grab the entire playlist as fast as the server can squirt it, then the server could be shut down. If your network runs at 20 Mbps, 4 GB would transfer in about 30 minutes.

The only functionality added in the SB would be to recognize the thumbdrive and use it as the buffer. Maybe a thumbdrive can't be accessed where read and write take place almost simultaneously...

TD

pfarrell
2007-02-05, 21:00
tyler_durden wrote:
> The only functionality added in the SB would be to recognize the
> thumbdrive and use it as the buffer. Maybe a thumbdrive can't be
> accessed where read and write take place almost simultaneously...

I'm not one to address whether or not this (the thumb-on-SB idea) is a
good idea, but flash drives are very bad buffers. Flash memory wears
out, or has 'memory', so you don't want to write to it a zillion times.
Using flash memory for a buffer or swap space is just not a good idea.
When flash memory is used as a pseudo-disk, the driver sprays writes to
different sectors to avoid over working any one part.

For buffers, you want to use boring old RAM, or for specialized cases,
RAM setup as a queue in hardware.

For MP3 or FLAC files that a SB handles natively, since the SB2, you are
approaching negligible improvement with larger buffers unless you have
really bad wireless networking. Of course, for non-native lossless, you
might occasionally need a larger buffer, but why would you want to use
something besides FLAC :-)

Pat

--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

Ben Sandee
2007-02-05, 21:09
On 2/5/07, Pat Farrell <pfarrell (AT) pfarrell (DOT) com> wrote:
>
> tyler_durden wrote:
> > The only functionality added in the SB would be to recognize the
> > thumbdrive and use it as the buffer. Maybe a thumbdrive can't be
> > accessed where read and write take place almost simultaneously...
>
> I'm not one to address whether or not this (the thumb-on-SB idea) is a
> good idea, but flash drives are very bad buffers. Flash memory wears
> out, or has 'memory', so you don't want to write to it a zillion times.


Somewhat true, but this 'fact' (which will soon be an urban legend) is
developing a life of its own as technology changes underneath it. But your
other points are definitely valid. It is certainly not out of the realm of
possibility that hardware as powerful as the SB3 could stream (readonly) off
of a flash drive of some sort.

Ben

pfarrell
2007-02-05, 21:18
Ben Sandee wrote:
>> Flash memory wears
>> out, or has 'memory', so you don't want to write to it a zillion times.
>
> Somewhat true, but this 'fact' (which will soon be an urban legend) is
> developing a life of its own as technology changes underneath it.

Right, "flash memory" is changing rapidly, and some of the newest solid
state drives are at least as robust as rotating memory is. Of course,
the huge installed base of cheap thumb drives tend to be the older
technology, which is far less suitable for buffers than the newest stuff.

Flash Memory has been "the next great thing" in memory for at least 15
years, and it is starting to actually be pretty cool.

Still, the thumb drive that has been on my key chain for the past 18+
months has probably been written to only fifty to hundred times, and I
expect that is fairly typical.

> But your other points are definitely valid.

And this buffer idea is not likely to be what the OP had in mind anyway....


--
Pat
http://www.pfarrell.com/music/slimserver/slimsoftware.html

mudlark
2007-02-06, 02:16
Thanks for the posts. I was thinking of a larger buffer which can be streamed later. If 2Gb isn't possible then why not something less. There are some DAB tuners that can save a bit of DAB for playing later and I'm sure they don't have operating sytems. I realise the data from DAB is smaller than good old FLAC, but this function will happen in my opinion. I was just wondering about the idea with a small form like SB. The playlist would be assembled on the computer when it was running, the data dropped the SB and then played until the buffer runs out.

Thanks again for all the interesting views.

M.

PS for all those across then pond and across the world DAB is a crap digital radio system that the BBC use in the UK.

MrSinatra
2007-02-06, 02:47
i for one think putting SS on the SB and completely removing it from the computer is a FANTASTIC idea that i've wanted since i first setup the whole shebang.

for one, it completely gets rid of the platform issues. for two, upgrades and so on could be done automatically by the SB on its own, no intervention required. for three it makes a web interface more understandable as the gui one mainly uses. fourth, it means you really could get by using it without owning a computer at all, (a flash card could store DB info, and your music could be via USB drive or webserver even).

u just take the SB anywhere with you and plug it in, you don't need to install software. if running linux as the SB OS, it could be custom made for it, and could update itself that way too, so it can keep up with new filesystems and so on.

also, with SS built in, you wouldn't have to decide between direct streaming or proxied, but i guess you could have the choice if you wanted it.

you could also install/uninstall plugins via the SB interface and SD website... meaning, u want a plugin? just turn it on, and the SB dl's it and puts it in from the sd website.

i think there's a lot of untapped potential in the approach.

adhawkins
2007-02-06, 03:18
Hi,

In article <tyler_durden.2lkedb1170733801 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com>,
tyler_durden<tyler_durden.2lkedb1170733801 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com> wrote:
> The SB would simply grab the entire playlist as fast as the server can
> squirt it, then the server could be shut down.

And the Squeezebox's display would go dark, and the remote would no longer
work.

Andy