PDA

View Full Version : Original SB & FLAC



mustbemad
2007-02-15, 03:47
Hi all

Can anyone tell me what the deal is with the SB1 and FLAC encoding?

I understand that native FLAC was not included until the SB2 hardware. Does this mean then that the FLAC decoding is done by Slimserver, and then the music transmitted as uncompressed over the network?

If that is indeed the case, then I guess that any issues will be those of server performance and network throughput?

Any other issues I may encounter?

Thanks

ceejay
2007-02-15, 04:46
Yes, yes, and yes.

Server performance is unlikely to be an issue as it is not very hard to transcode FLAC to WAV. But WAV demands more network throughput...

Other issues? Only that FF/REW won't work if you are transcoding at the server...


Ceejay

Patrick Dixon
2007-02-15, 05:15
Any other issues I may encounter?
Apparently the SB1 doesn't sound nearly as good as even an SB2 - although the only one I have ever seen was a dead one so I can't speak from experience.

The SB1 is 'b' rather than 'g' wireless networking - so 10Mb/s rather than 100Mb/s.

The SB1 has a much smaller buffer than the SB2/3, so it's more exposed to network throughput problems.

Also the SB1 originally came with a different screen, which was later updated to the same one as is now used in the SB2/3.

mustbemad
2007-02-15, 05:24
Thanks Guys!

hickinbottoms
2007-02-15, 06:25
Patrick Dixon wrote:
> Also the SB1 originally came with a different screen, which was later
> updated to the same one as is now used in the SB2/3.
>
You sure about that? I thought the SB2/3/Transporter screens were
capable of different intensities simultaneously (hence visualisations
'behind' the text). You can't do that on a SB(G).

Stuart

azinck3
2007-02-15, 09:54
Apparently the SB1 doesn't sound nearly as good as even an SB2 - although the only one I have ever seen was a dead one so I can't speak from experience.


Indeed, the SB2/3 sound significantly better than the SB1



The SB1 is 'b' rather than 'g' wireless networking - so 10Mb/s rather than 100Mb/s.


Well, you're kind of right, but are mixing things. The wireless SB1 indeed only supports 802.11b (11Mbps) rather than G (54Mbps). Additionally, the SB1's wired network interface was only 10baseT rather than 100baseT.



Also the SB1 originally came with a different screen, which was later updated to the same one as is now used in the SB2/3.

This is not quite true. The SB1G did offer an upgraded graphical screen (280x16, no grayscale) but it's not anywhere near as good as those in the sb2/3/transporter (320x32, grayscale). I have an SB1g and it's nowhere near as pretty as my SB2.

peter
2007-02-20, 11:12
azinck3 wrote:

> Well, you're kind of right, but are mixing things. The wireless SB1
> indeed only supports 802.11b (11Mbps) rather than G (54Mbps).
> Additionally, the SB1's wired network interface was only 10baseT rather
> than 100baseT.
>


It doesn't do WPA either which is another fairly big problem.


> This is not quite true. The SB1G did offer an upgraded graphical
> screen (280x16, no grayscale) but it's not anywhere near as good as
> those in the sb2/3/transporter (320x32, grayscale). I have an SB1g and
> it's nowhere near as pretty as my SB2.
>

I upgraded my SB1 display, but I was disappointed about the quality
compared to my SB3.

Regards,
Peter