PDA

View Full Version : Sreaming to Foobar



luuk
2007-05-17, 11:42
Foobar is my preferred desktop player. Is it possible to link Slimserver with Foobar so that I can select the tracks to be played using SlimServer and have them play on the same computer using Foobar? NB. SlimServer is running on the same computer as Foobar (all the music is also on that machine).

Luuk

ddewey
2007-05-17, 11:48
Quoting luuk (luuk.2qqqgz1179427501 (AT) no-mx (DOT) forums.slimdevices.com):

>
> Foobar is my preferred desktop player. Is it possible to link Slimserver
> with Foobar so that I can select the tracks to be played using
> SlimServer and have them play on the same computer using Foobar? NB.
> SlimServer is running on the same computer as Foobar (all the music is
> also on that machine).

Sure. I don't know why you'd want to do this, but sure.

Open this url from within foobar:
http://localhost:9000/stream.mp3

Mark Lanctot
2007-05-17, 11:56
Point foobar to localhost:9000/stream.mp3.

But you won't have as much control over it as SoftSqueeze. Also, why not play the files directly in foobar?

luuk
2007-05-17, 12:13
Thanks. I tried your suggestion but with stream.mp3 it will only play mp3 (all my files are flac and stream.flac doesn't work). Moroever, even when I list more than one (MP3) song in SlimServer, I have to reactivate Foobar after each song.

I do realise that what I am trying to do is a little silly, and I have the strong sensation I am missing something. As far as I know though SlimServer cannot send songs directly to the soundcard, can it?

Luuk

Mark Lanctot
2007-05-17, 12:17
Thanks. I tried your suggestion but with stream.mp3 it will only play mp3 (all my files are flac and stream.flac doesn't work). Moroever, even when I list more than one (MP3) song in SlimServer, I have to reactivate Foobar after each song.

You need to install LAME in a location SlimServer can see. Go to Player Settings - Audio - Bitrate Limiting. You also need to enable FLAC -> MP3 in Server Settings - File Types.


I do realise that what I am trying to do is a little silly, and I have the strong sensation I am missing something. As far as I know though SlimServer cannot send songs directly to the soundcard, can it?

Well, presumably foobar can access any file SlimServer can, and it can output directly to your soundcard? Not sure what advantage you're gaining by using SlimServer here.

luuk
2007-05-17, 12:26
I have Lame but SlimServer doesn't acknowledge its presence. Does it need to go anywhere special?

I would like to use SlimServer as my interface to my music. An alternative would be SoftSqueeze, but I why install something extra when I already have SlimServer to feed my SB2?

Luuk

Mark Lanctot
2007-05-17, 12:33
I have Lame but SlimServer doesn't acknowledge its presence. Does it need to go anywhere special?

I'm not sure - the SlimServer directory?


I would like to use SlimServer as my interface to my music. An alternative would be SoftSqueeze, but I why install something extra when I already have SlimServer to feed my SB2?

SoftSqueeze doesn't require this sort of transcoding - it behaves like your SB2 and even looks like it. You get visualizations and you can fully control SlimServer through it - start, stop, search, FF/REW of native formats, etc. Plus you can run it right from SlimServer - just click Help - SoftSqueeze.

But again, you can do all this from within foobar.

luuk
2007-05-18, 01:21
Mark I know what SoftSqueeze can do. It just seems a little silly to have to resort to extra software when with the addition of a driver SlimServer could be made to do the same thing.

Luuk

Pale Blue Ego
2007-05-18, 19:24
Why use slimserver to play a local file? If Foobar is your default player, why not just use it to play the files directly? You can double-click on any file, or import the whole library into Foobar for quick searches.

jonhanson
2007-05-22, 15:47
I think this is an eminently reasonable thing to want to do. My music files are on a NAS box accessed via my router over wireless. Playing the files directly can lead them frequently pausing or dropping out, presumably since the underlying network file system wasn't designed to handling streaming of media. My Squeezebox doesn't have this problem since the SlimServer is designed for media streaming.

I too would like some sort of interface to the slimserver from within foobar.

jon

bhaagensen
2007-05-22, 16:27
An alternative would be SoftSqueeze, but I why install something extra when I already have SlimServer to feed my SB2?


Arguably I don't think you actually need to install SoftSqueeze in order to use it. It's kind of already "installed" when you install slimserver. Just launch it, maybe as an applet, from the slimserver interface. Then it's no more installed than any java applet you come across on the web. So to me it seems Softsqueeze would be perfect for you since you can control it from the slimserver interface which you say you prefer.

On a more technical note I think that SoftSqueeze is preferable since the stream.mp3 interface is very primitive in comparison. For instance depending on how much cache foobar is using you would not get instant track change since foobar would need to play the part of the current track in it's cache. This could add up to several seconds, especially with low bitrate files. This is all avoided due to the more complicated slimprotocol used by softsqueeze. Moreover as it seems both you and <b>jonhanson</b> need to use serverside transcoding its a bit annoying since with the stream.mp3 interface I think you need to set up transcoding globally. I.e. either all your players play flac, or none do. Softsqueeze gets assigned a virtual mac-address so you can do it per player instead.

So, to me at least, softsqueeze is really the prefered thing to use since it really is built as the glove to fit the hand of slimserver...

Mark Lanctot
2007-05-22, 19:07
I think this is an eminently reasonable thing to want to do. My music files are on a NAS box accessed via my router over wireless.

Ah yes, but this wouldn't quite be local playback now would it?

I was referring to playing files stored on the same PC running SlimServer and running foobar.

Yours is a different situation. Still, if you can't manage a FLAC's worth of bandwidth across your WLAN, you have more pressing problems.

Smiley Dan
2007-05-23, 04:33
I think it's reasonable whether the files are local or not. If you want your slimserver to appear as an abstraction layer/appliance you play music through you have to use it in some way. For instance, gathering statistics, rating songs, integration with radio sources as a first class concept and so on.

If you tie yourself to playing files you are coupling to an implementation of music playback. It's generally better to abstract (in my opinion).

This is one of my biggest frustrations with SlimServer. It doesn't make it easy enough to do this. Stream.mp3 is primitive (only supports one player for starters) and softsqueeze is really just a marketing tool for the squeezebox, and so its UI is constrained to match it.

bhaagensen
2007-05-23, 06:57
If you want your slimserver to appear as an abstraction layer/appliance you play music through you have to use it in some way.


Yes, but to me it seems obvious that it is indeed not the purpose of the slimserver. It's by design tied to the squeezebox. I don't think slimserver was ever ment as a general purpose music server, so it's "hard" to complain about not being able to use it as one. I think such products will appear in the future. My guess it that what is lacking are standarized protocols for musicserver/musicclient communication. I mean if foobar/xmms/winamp/itunes/your-favorite-player implemented the slimprotocol it would all be a ok, right? Standard protocol that comes to mind are avahi/upnp/bonjour, but these are partially closed, and I'm not even sure they would be rich enough to do what slimserver can. My guess is that in a few years this will become more common.



If you tie yourself to playing files you are coupling to an implementation of music playback. It's generally better to abstract (in my opinion).

This is one of my biggest frustrations with SlimServer. It doesn't make it easy enough to do this. Stream.mp3 is primitive (only supports one player for starters)


I have no problems streaming to several players at the same time using stream.mp3. I think it's just being served over http, so it's possible for the same reasons that make the forums viewable by more than one person at the same time. And just out of curiosity.

What is it that is so bad about softsqueeze ? If the requests are reasonable, perhaps the developer will implement them?

jimbres
2007-05-24, 18:00
My music server is a Linux box that feeds my SB3 on another floor, but when I'm working, which requires Windows XP, I usually stream to foobar or XMPlay rather than use SoftSqueeze. (My Windows machine has a much better soundcard than the Linux box.)

XMPlay, Winamp & foobar all support global hotkeys, which let me control the music even when the media software is buried under a half-dozen other apps & another program has focus. SoftSqueeze only supports the traditional Winamp keyboard shortcuts (C for pause, X for play, etc), & those don't work unless SoftSqueeze has the focus.

If SoftSqueeze supported global hotkeys, I'd use it more often often.