PDA

View Full Version : Odd SB3 behaviour



Furry
2007-06-15, 09:06
Just turned on my SB3 for the first time today to find that its acting strangely. Listening to Squeeze Network, Radio Paradise.

It seems to be intermittently unresponsive to the remote, particularly when attempting to change volume setting, with either no or, more usually, delayed response to button presses.

At one point, it had the volume bar displayed with the small graphic eq superimposed on it. The display also went completely blank a few times, for a few seconds, before coming back on again.

Its as though its somehow 'too busy' to respond to or act upon the remote's commands. I tried the remote from my 2nd SB3, just the same.

I tried pulling the power, but still the same after powering up again.

Anyone else seen this behaviour, or got any theories?

Edit: I've just tried connecting to Slim Server instead, then to RP via that, and oddly it seems to be etter, more responsive. Is it possible that something about being connected to SN can requires more 'horsepower' from the SB3, so 'distracting' it from my remote commands?

Dave.

snarlydwarf
2007-06-15, 09:34
Edit: I've just tried connecting to Slim Server instead, then to RP via that, and oddly it seems to be etter, more responsive. Is it possible that something about being connected to SN can requires more 'horsepower' from the SB3, so 'distracting' it from my remote commands?

Close: but it isn't an issue of CPU power, but of latency between you and Squeezenetwork. The SB doesnt process volume commands itself: it sends it to the current server (either your local Slimserver or Squeezenetwork), which figures out what key you pressed and what you want to do, then sends back "please turn the volume down to 38" to the Squeezebox.

Since there is a mess called the Internet between your SB and SN, any problems anywhere on the path can increase that latency.

Furry
2007-06-15, 10:11
The SB doesnt process volume commands itself: it sends it to the current server (either your local Slimserver or Squeezenetwork), which figures out what key you pressed and what you want to do, then sends back "please turn the volume down to 38" to the Squeezebox.

Thanks. I'm going to have to think about that, before I conclude whether or not I think its: a) a bizarre way to do it, or b) a perfectly sensible method.

I'd assumed that the remote control was effecting changes within the SB3 itself.

It does sort of explain the way you can control the player from the internet i.e. when logged on to SN. Not sure whether that still precludes direct local control though.

snarlydwarf
2007-06-15, 11:05
It is a pretty typical "thin client" type design. It does give numerous advantages in flexibility.

For example, suppose you had a Way Cool UltraDAC and PreAMP. Therefore you wanted to use the digital outs of the SB to the DAC, and use the volume of the Preamp... but didn't want to have Yet Another Remote in the pile.

With an IRBlaster, you could set things up so that the volume button on the SB didn't change the SB volume at all... just the Preamp volume.

And of course, there is the truly wonderful VolumeGuard plugin that changes volume back to what you wanted when a pesky spouse or girlfriend turns the music down... it needs to intercept the volume controls to do that.

With things other than Volume, of course, it leads to a lot more flexibility in plugins. Pressing "5" on my remote rates a track as having 5 stars using the TrackStat plugin... There is no way that sort of complexity could be in the SB hardware itself.

Latency can be a user interface issue, but then I don't use Squeezenetwork often at all... my local server is always on anyway.

MelonMonkey
2007-06-19, 20:14
With things other than Volume, of course, it leads to a lot more flexibility in plugins. Pressing "5" on my remote rates a track as having 5 stars using the TrackStat plugin... There is no way that sort of complexity could be in the SB hardware itself.


Sure it could and it's a falacy to think otherwise. IR is very low budget on resources. You can do pretty much anything you want with only a tiny amount of memory in fact and very little processing power.

Anything that is decided not to be handled by the client itself could then be passed on to the server. Having volume NOT supported at all directly by the player is a valid design decision, but not a very good one. It is in fact the easy way out. Devices far less powerful than the SqueezeBox client have done far more with IR for for 20 years.

As it stands, aside from net latency, volume performance is abysmal, but that has more to do with the assigned curve than the fact it's controlled by the server. Not to mention going down from volume level 2 immediately goes to 0 instead of 1. Need to file that one as a bug if it's not already there.

erland
2007-06-20, 09:37
Having volume NOT supported at all directly by the player is a valid design decision, but not a very good one. Do people really use the volume control ?
I'm probably missing someting obvious, but isn't the SB always connected to some sort of receiver/amplifier that will have a volume control which would be more suitable to use ?

The volume control on my SB always stands at 100% and I control the actual volume on the receiver instead.

It could of course be that you don't want to use several remote controls (SB + Receiver remote), but other than that I can't really see the purpose of a fast volume control on the SB itself.

aubuti
2007-06-20, 10:29
It could of course be that you don't want to use several remote controls (SB + Receiver remote), but other than that I can't really see the purpose of a fast volume control on the SB itself.
That's the reason I use the SB remote volume on my living room system, and I have two more scenarios for you: (2) the amp is so old it doesn't have a remote (my basement system) and (3) the "amp" is a pair of active speakers that are a pain to reach to adjust the volume on the speaker (my kitchen system). And here's a variation on (3): I'll soon be replacing the active speakers with in-ceiling speakers and an amp tucked away out of sight (and out of IR range) in a cupboard.

I can definitely see your point about using the amp/receiver volume control in many many circumstances, but one size definitely doesn't fit all.

slimpy
2007-06-20, 13:10
Having volume NOT supported at all directly by the player is a valid design decision, but not a very good one. It is in fact the easy way out.
I'm sure all the folks who use the SB remote with the IRBlaster plugin to control the volume of their amps are relieved to know that you were not the designer of this product.

Not to mention going down from volume level 2 immediately goes to 0 instead of 1
But it goes to 11! I always wondered where they got the extra one from ;)

-s.