PDA

View Full Version : DAC silence output problem back.....



Mark Bennett
2004-04-27, 01:03
Hi Sean,

I've noticed that with Firmware 21 the old DAC silence issues
seems to be back. My DAC (Benchmark DAC1) now shows the error
light when the SB is paused, stopped or when skipping between
tracks.

I don't think that this was present with Firmware 10, and I've
only just noticed on FW21. I know that this was one of the things
fixed a while ago, and it now seems to be back.

The Benchmark copes admirably with this, so it doesn't affect
my listening pleasure, but this probably won't be true with
more fussy DAC's.

Pat - as another Benchmark user can you confirm you're seeing this?

Thanks,
Mark.

seanadams
2004-04-27, 07:21
Mark, what file formats are you playing when you see this?

On Apr 27, 2004, at 1:03 AM, Mark Bennett wrote:

> Hi Sean,
>
> I've noticed that with Firmware 21 the old DAC silence issues
> seems to be back. My DAC (Benchmark DAC1) now shows the error
> light when the SB is paused, stopped or when skipping between
> tracks.
>
> I don't think that this was present with Firmware 10, and I've
> only just noticed on FW21. I know that this was one of the things
> fixed a while ago, and it now seems to be back.
>
> The Benchmark copes admirably with this, so it doesn't affect
> my listening pleasure, but this probably won't be true with
> more fussy DAC's.
>
> Pat - as another Benchmark user can you confirm you're seeing this?
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
>
>
>

Pat Farrell
2004-04-27, 07:27
At 04:03 AM 4/27/2004, Mark Bennett wrote:
>Pat - as another Benchmark user can you confirm you're seeing this?

Sorry, I've not yet made the jump to V2* firmware.
Don't want to break my only SqueezeBox and all that.

I did notice that when I first used the Benchmark, that the error led would
light up a lot, and that one of the earlier firmware fixes made it go out
and stay out. For a long time, maybe a month, it never lit.

When I first installed 5.1.5, I saw it flash on occasionally, but
not recently.

As soon as everyone else is happy with firmware 2x, I'll try it and let you
know.

Pat

Mark Bennett
2004-04-27, 13:44
Hi Pat,

so even better - can you confirm which Frimware you are using, and
whether you see the error light or not?

Cheers,
Mark.

Pat Farrell wrote:
> At 04:03 AM 4/27/2004, Mark Bennett wrote:
>
>> Pat - as another Benchmark user can you confirm you're seeing this?
>
>
> Sorry, I've not yet made the jump to V2* firmware.
> Don't want to break my only SqueezeBox and all that.
>
> I did notice that when I first used the Benchmark, that the error led would
> light up a lot, and that one of the earlier firmware fixes made it go out
> and stay out. For a long time, maybe a month, it never lit.
>
> When I first installed 5.1.5, I saw it flash on occasionally, but
> not recently.
>
> As soon as everyone else is happy with firmware 2x, I'll try it and let
> you know.
>
> Pat
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

Mark Bennett
2004-04-27, 13:59
Hi Sean,

initially I spotted this on Flac (as per most of my collection).

Since you asked I have tested with Ogg and MP3 and see exactly
the same problem. I guess this covers most bases, so I haven't
tried anything else.

Let me know if you need to try anything else.

Thanks,
Mark.

Sean Adams wrote:

>
> Mark, what file formats are you playing when you see this?
>
> On Apr 27, 2004, at 1:03 AM, Mark Bennett wrote:
>
>> Hi Sean,
>>
>> I've noticed that with Firmware 21 the old DAC silence issues
>> seems to be back. My DAC (Benchmark DAC1) now shows the error
>> light when the SB is paused, stopped or when skipping between
>> tracks.
>>
>> I don't think that this was present with Firmware 10, and I've
>> only just noticed on FW21. I know that this was one of the things
>> fixed a while ago, and it now seems to be back.
>>
>> The Benchmark copes admirably with this, so it doesn't affect
>> my listening pleasure, but this probably won't be true with
>> more fussy DAC's.
>>
>> Pat - as another Benchmark user can you confirm you're seeing this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark.
>>
>>
>>

Mark Bennett
2004-04-30, 00:29
OK, so I've now found the cause of this problem, and I guess
it should have been obvious really.

SlimServer 5.1.5 decides all on it's own to transcode all music
to 320kb/s MP3 if the Squeezebox is on a wireless network. This
means that when I thought I was transmitting PCM, I wasn't.
(I never noticed the quality since I haven't had a serious
listening session since upgrading, and the setup is currently
in the bedroom.)

Since the DAC silence bug is fixed for PCM, but not for MP3 it
explains what I'm seeing.

I've removed all references to MP3 conversion from the format
conversion setup (squeezebox or not) and now it's fine.

If people want this functionality, either create a new field
for "connection type" in the conversion setup, or create a new
definition for "wireless squeezebox". At least then what's going
on is transparent and easily configurable by users.

Sean Adams wrote:
>
> Mark, what file formats are you playing when you see this?
>
> On Apr 27, 2004, at 1:03 AM, Mark Bennett wrote:
>
>> Hi Sean,
>>
>> I've noticed that with Firmware 21 the old DAC silence issues
>> seems to be back. My DAC (Benchmark DAC1) now shows the error
>> light when the SB is paused, stopped or when skipping between
>> tracks.
>>
>> I don't think that this was present with Firmware 10, and I've
>> only just noticed on FW21. I know that this was one of the things
>> fixed a while ago, and it now seems to be back.
>>
>> The Benchmark copes admirably with this, so it doesn't affect
>> my listening pleasure, but this probably won't be true with
>> more fussy DAC's.
>>
>> Pat - as another Benchmark user can you confirm you're seeing this?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Mark.
>>
>>
>>

kdf
2004-04-30, 09:42
There is a plan in the works, but it requires some tricky changes to the way
settings work. The server setting would enable or disable global options. Then
there would be a player setting to choose the desired option (on-the-fly) from
the enabled server settings.

-kdf

Quoting Mark Bennett <mark (AT) markandliz (DOT) co.uk>:

> OK, so I've now found the cause of this problem, and I guess
> it should have been obvious really.
>
> SlimServer 5.1.5 decides all on it's own to transcode all music
> to 320kb/s MP3 if the Squeezebox is on a wireless network. This
> means that when I thought I was transmitting PCM, I wasn't.
> (I never noticed the quality since I haven't had a serious
> listening session since upgrading, and the setup is currently
> in the bedroom.)
>
> Since the DAC silence bug is fixed for PCM, but not for MP3 it
> explains what I'm seeing.
>
> I've removed all references to MP3 conversion from the format
> conversion setup (squeezebox or not) and now it's fine.
>
> If people want this functionality, either create a new field
> for "connection type" in the conversion setup, or create a new
> definition for "wireless squeezebox". At least then what's going
> on is transparent and easily configurable by users.
>
> Sean Adams wrote:
> >
> > Mark, what file formats are you playing when you see this?
> >
> > On Apr 27, 2004, at 1:03 AM, Mark Bennett wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Sean,
> >>
> >> I've noticed that with Firmware 21 the old DAC silence issues
> >> seems to be back. My DAC (Benchmark DAC1) now shows the error
> >> light when the SB is paused, stopped or when skipping between
> >> tracks.
> >>
> >> I don't think that this was present with Firmware 10, and I've
> >> only just noticed on FW21. I know that this was one of the things
> >> fixed a while ago, and it now seems to be back.
> >>
> >> The Benchmark copes admirably with this, so it doesn't affect
> >> my listening pleasure, but this probably won't be true with
> >> more fussy DAC's.
> >>
> >> Pat - as another Benchmark user can you confirm you're seeing this?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Mark.
> >>
> >>
> >>

Daryle A. Tilroe
2004-04-30, 11:45
Mark Bennett wrote:

> OK, so I've now found the cause of this problem, and I guess
> it should have been obvious really.
>
> SlimServer 5.1.5 decides all on it's own to transcode all music
> to 320kb/s MP3 if the Squeezebox is on a wireless network. This
> means that when I thought I was transmitting PCM, I wasn't.
> (I never noticed the quality since I haven't had a serious
> listening session since upgrading, and the setup is currently
> in the bedroom.)
>
> Since the DAC silence bug is fixed for PCM, but not for MP3 it
> explains what I'm seeing.
>
> I've removed all references to MP3 conversion from the format
> conversion setup (squeezebox or not) and now it's fine.
>
> If people want this functionality, either create a new field
> for "connection type" in the conversion setup, or create a new
> definition for "wireless squeezebox". At least then what's going
> on is transparent and easily configurable by users.

FYI I opened a bug for this "feature" over a week ago. I am
sure it should be simple to put a setting on the server:
'Let me think for myself and don't assume I want MP3 to my
wireless squeezebox' :-)

http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=270

--
Daryle A. Tilroe

Daryle A. Tilroe
2004-04-30, 11:49
kdf wrote:

> There is a plan in the works, but it requires some tricky changes to the way
> settings work. The server setting would enable or disable global options. Then
> there would be a player setting to choose the desired option (on-the-fly) from
> the enabled server settings.

I don't see why this is so difficult to turn off. Just a server setting
isn't it? There is already the maximum bit rate setting for the players
that will trigger MP3 transcoding on demand. What am I missing, what
makes this so complicated? Personally I think the "feature" should simply
be removed.


--
Daryle A. Tilroe

kdf
2004-04-30, 12:21
Quoting "Daryle A. Tilroe" <daryle (AT) micralyne (DOT) com>:

> Mark Bennett wrote:
>
> > OK, so I've now found the cause of this problem, and I guess
> > it should have been obvious really.
> >
> > SlimServer 5.1.5 decides all on it's own to transcode all music
> > to 320kb/s MP3 if the Squeezebox is on a wireless network. This
> > means that when I thought I was transmitting PCM, I wasn't.
> > (I never noticed the quality since I haven't had a serious
> > listening session since upgrading, and the setup is currently
> > in the bedroom.)
> >
> > Since the DAC silence bug is fixed for PCM, but not for MP3 it
> > explains what I'm seeing.
> >
> > I've removed all references to MP3 conversion from the format
> > conversion setup (squeezebox or not) and now it's fine.
> >
> > If people want this functionality, either create a new field
> > for "connection type" in the conversion setup, or create a new
> > definition for "wireless squeezebox". At least then what's going
> > on is transparent and easily configurable by users.
>
> FYI I opened a bug for this "feature" over a week ago. I am
> sure it should be simple to put a setting on the server:
> 'Let me think for myself and don't assume I want MP3 to my
> wireless squeezebox' :-)
>
> http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=270

go head...patches welcome :)
-kdf

kdf
2004-04-30, 12:29
Quoting "Daryle A. Tilroe" <daryle (AT) micralyne (DOT) com>:

> kdf wrote:
>
> > There is a plan in the works, but it requires some tricky changes to the
> way
> > settings work. The server setting would enable or disable global options.
> Then
> > there would be a player setting to choose the desired option (on-the-fly)
> from
> > the enabled server settings.
>
> I don't see why this is so difficult to turn off. Just a server setting
> isn't it? There is already the maximum bit rate setting for the players
> that will trigger MP3 transcoding on demand. What am I missing, what
> makes this so complicated? Personally I think the "feature" should simply
> be removed.

because it can be removed, by disabling the mp3 output options in the settings.
The performance issues of wireless are many. The point is to make it 'work'
for as great a number as possible. MP3 may bother you, but there are a great
many who think mp3 is fine, but are upset when their system stutters.

anyway...I dont care. I'm a volunteer. I do what I can, and when I can. I'm
sorry you think this sucks. I was only trying to let tyou know there are some
of us trying to come up with a nice solution that will try to make everyone
happy, even if it takes me some time to do it right.

I suggested the mp3 bitrate setting a long time ago, and I didn't win. So I went
looking for another idea. I'm tired of listening to ppl whine when they dont get
what they want.

flame away...it wont hurt me.

-kdf

Daryle A. Tilroe
2004-04-30, 14:23
kdf wrote:

> Quoting "Daryle A. Tilroe" <daryle (AT) micralyne (DOT) com>:
>
>>I don't see why this is so difficult to turn off. Just a server setting
>>isn't it? There is already the maximum bit rate setting for the players
>>that will trigger MP3 transcoding on demand. What am I missing, what
>>makes this so complicated? Personally I think the "feature" should simply
>>be removed.
>
> because it can be removed, by disabling the mp3 output options in the settings.
> The performance issues of wireless are many. The point is to make it 'work'
> for as great a number as possible. MP3 may bother you, but there are a great
> many who think mp3 is fine, but are upset when their system stutters.

But I do want to stream mp3 to softsqueeze. I could alter the conversion
file every time I generate a new remote softsqueeze location but that
is difficult to do remotely. Anyhow; won't those who think mp3 is fine
already have their collection in mp3 rendering this feature moot? I mean
if you care enough about quality to have flac'd your music doesn't it
stand to reason you would like it streamed that way unless bandwidth
dictated you absolutely had to transcode it? Basically this change only
affects the people most sensitive to quality and sophisticated enough to
throttle it back manually if required.

Just as an aside I believe the slimserver and squeezebox's support of
flac/wav is one of it's major competitive advantages compared to other
mp3 appliances. It could be a smart marketing move to focus on the more
discerning listeners.

> anyway...I dont care. I'm a volunteer. I do what I can, and when I can. I'm
> sorry you think this sucks. I was only trying to let tyou know there are some
> of us trying to come up with a nice solution that will try to make everyone
> happy, even if it takes me some time to do it right.

Please don't get upset. I am not attacking you personally. I know
you are only a volunteer. My comments, and slight disappointment with
this change, are really directed to slimdevices from the point of view
of a paying customer who does not like a change. It is not meant to
disparage the efforts of the open source development volunteers. OTOH
slimdevices has to be aware that when they accept changes to the code
the result should be well thought out. I don't even know who submitted
the change or who suggested it.

> I suggested the mp3 bitrate setting a long time ago, and I didn't win. So I went
> looking for another idea. I'm tired of listening to ppl whine when they dont get
> what they want.

I am not sure who you "lost" to. Who makes these decisions? Isn't
it slimdevices? I don't think we are "whining" when we give customer
feedback. Does slimdevices really want us to shutup and not give feedback
on how their changes are affecting customers?

> flame away...it wont hurt me.

No bbq for you today. None of this was meant to induce a flamewar.
I just can't understand why something was hardcoded when there was
already a great per device solution to any bandwidth problem (a solution
you seem to think was preferable as well).

--
Daryle A. Tilroe

Pat Farrell
2004-04-30, 15:21
At 05:23 PM 4/30/2004, Daryle A. Tilroe wrote:
>kdf wrote:
>>anyway...I dont care. I'm a volunteer. I do what I can, and when I can. I
>
>Please don't get upset. I am not attacking you personally. I know
>you are only a volunteer.

Yeah, and KDF is worth at least twice what we're paying him
and the rest of the volunteers.

I bought the SqueezeBox over its competitors because of the open source
license for SlimServer. It was important to me, it is not important to
some large number of folks, and is ignored by others. For example,
the May 18 PC Magazine review had no mention of the Open Source
for SlimServer. Nothing for or against.

>I am not sure who you "lost" to. Who makes these decisions? Isn't
>it slimdevices?

I'm not kdf and haven't been arround that long, but it isn't clear to
me who, if anyone, makes critical product decisions.

I've never heard of a mass market consumer item that needed support
without having a corporation supporting it with lots of very expensive
folks, call centers, etc. The SlimDevices model is unique to my experience.

I want SlimDev to sell lots of hardware, so they will contribute lots of
engineering to SlimServer and even invent cooler SqueezeBox II and III
products.
But I'm not sure that the volunteer support model works for hardware.
Even if the support that the volunteers like kdf and others on this list
are orders better than any support that I've gotten from Microsoft as I
spent thousands and thousands of dollars for software licenses.

I do think that the main FAQ and product literature should be more
informative about what support is and is not provided. But that, like
everything else, is just IMHO

Pat

kdf
2004-04-30, 15:41
Quoting Pat Farrell <pfarrell (AT) pfarrell (DOT) com>:

> At 05:23 PM 4/30/2004, Daryle A. Tilroe wrote:
> >kdf wrote:
> >>anyway...I dont care. I'm a volunteer. I do what I can, and when I can.
> I
> >
> >Please don't get upset. I am not attacking you personally. I know
> >you are only a volunteer.
>
> Yeah, and KDF is worth at least twice what we're paying him
> and the rest of the volunteers.

worth my weight in dirt, if I do say so myself ;)
>
> >I am not sure who you "lost" to. Who makes these decisions? Isn't
> >it slimdevices?

to go back and respond to the above, I made my argument, and the reponse was
that there is a better way to do it. I said there was a solution in progress,
but that it will need a few other things. If you are convinced that I'm full of
crap, and you believe its a cimple solution, you can always post a patch. But
to respond in such a way as to give the impression that you are simply
dissatisfied with the speed at which demands are met...well, doesn't tend to
illicit my help. It is also a waste of time to have to retype a full backstory
on why any feature changes, including a full list of users who, after expressing
their feeling over the former methods, prompted the changes.

> I'm not kdf and haven't been arround that long, but it isn't clear to
> me who, if anyone, makes critical product decisions.

Sean and Dean. Well, that's who I listen to anyway. For all I know, Dick Cheney
is really behind the whole thing....

-kdf

Daryle A. Tilroe
2004-04-30, 17:21
Sigh... I feel like this discussion is turning into a debate
but I really just want to understand a few things about why
changes are made and who makes decisions. I think Pat was
right that the lines of responsibility for support and
enhancements of the slimserver and squeezebox are rather
confusing; at least to many of the customers like me (ie.
those who are not volunteer developers).

kdf wrote:

>>At 05:23 PM 4/30/2004, Daryle A. Tilroe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I am not sure who you "lost" to. Who makes these decisions? Isn't
>>>it slimdevices?
>
> to go back and respond to the above, I made my argument, and the reponse was
> that there is a better way to do it. I said there was a solution in progress,

I am confused; are you talking about me, slimdevices, who? And what
decision are you referring to: the inclusion of the new feature or the
desire to have it removed or modified?

> but that it will need a few other things. If you are convinced that I'm full of
> crap, and you believe its a cimple solution, you can always post a patch. But

I don't get this either. Where did I say anyone was full of crap? One
thing I thought I was pretty certain about, is that removing the feature
should simply be a matter of commenting out whatever code checks for
wireless and sets some flag. As for posting a patch: I don't know
if this is really an option for a simple/nondeveloper customer.

> to respond in such a way as to give the impression that you are simply
> dissatisfied with the speed at which demands are met...well, doesn't tend to

I am not sure I was conveying an impression of impatience; rather a
very low grade annoyance that something seemingly unnecessary was
introduced without a clear justification and it seemed to be
inconveniencing several people, including me. This is where you
may have to put yourself in the shoes of a customer rather than
developer. I bought devices to play music, suddenly something
has changed with those devices to inconvenience me. Who do I complain
to? I filed a bug report and when another user expressed the
same complaint I referred them to the report and reinforced by
belief at that/this point that I didn't see why it couldn't be
easily turned off since I could not see who it was helping. Now
at this point I realize that it was perceived to be directed at
you (kdf), but it really wasn't. It is really directed at whoever
made the decision to implement it in the first place; which you
made the point wasn't you.

> illicit my help. It is also a waste of time to have to retype a full backstory
> on why any feature changes, including a full list of users who, after expressing
> their feeling over the former methods, prompted the changes.

Could you link me to the bugzilla enhancement request for the original
feature? I can't seem to find it to read the backstory and see the people
requesting the original change. Also in terms of the users: I don't recall
(and can't find) any messages requesting this specific feature so I don't
know the motivations. Again perhaps I missed it and you could link to them
as well. I guess I should also say that 'you' is not necessarily kdf
(although you do seem to be in the know) but someone from slimdevices.

--
Daryle A. Tilroe

kdf
2004-04-30, 17:55
Quoting "Daryle A. Tilroe" <daryle (AT) micralyne (DOT) com>:

> Sigh... I feel like this discussion is turning into a debate

ok, so lets end it here :)

> but I really just want to understand a few things about why
> changes are made and who makes decisions. I think Pat was
> right that the lines of responsibility for support and
> enhancements of the slimserver and squeezebox are rather
> confusing; at least to many of the customers like me (ie.
> those who are not volunteer developers).

if you are reading this via email, looking for @slimdevices.com is a good bet.
I dont know of anyone who files their tax forms with slim devices in the blanks
who doesn't use an @slimdevices.com addy to post to this list.


> kdf wrote:
>
> >>At 05:23 PM 4/30/2004, Daryle A. Tilroe wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I am not sure who you "lost" to. Who makes these decisions? Isn't
> >>>it slimdevices?
> >
> > to go back and respond to the above, I made my argument, and the reponse
> was
> > that there is a better way to do it. I said there was a solution in
> progress,
>
> I am confused; are you talking about me, slimdevices, who? And what
> decision are you referring to: the inclusion of the new feature or the
> desire to have it removed or modified?



>
> > but that it will need a few other things. If you are convinced that I'm
> full of
> > crap, and you believe its a cimple solution, you can always post a patch.
> But
>
> I don't get this either. Where did I say anyone was full of crap?

you didn't. I'm opening up the option, now and future.


> It is really directed at whoever
> made the decision to implement it in the first place; which you
> made the point wasn't you.

ok, then that was my misunderstanding. It seemed to be in response to my
suggestion that a fix for this was in the works, and that it might take some
time. The reason I felt the need to even post that information is because its
something I've been tossing around for the last week or so, in order to get the
whole thing cleaned up. Open Source is an odd paradox sometimes. It can be
very responsive, but then it can also be slow. Band-aid solutions can be made
available in a matter of minutes. Patch submitted, and Dean re-runs the nightly
build. Other times, when a given feature has some comples ties, it takes time
to decide how to do it right.

> Could you link me to the bugzilla enhancement request for the original
> feature? I can't seem to find it to read the backstory and see the people
> requesting the original change. Also in terms of the users: I don't recall
> (and can't find) any messages requesting this specific feature so I don't
> know the motivations. Again perhaps I missed it and you could link to them
> as well. I guess I should also say that 'you' is not necessarily kdf
> (although you do seem to be in the know) but someone from slimdevices.

all of this would probably fall under:
http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=33

Admittedly, it doesn't show the rest which comes under several months of design
process, including numerous complaints about aiff and wav performance. A great
deal of time on this list was (and to some extent, still is) spent debugging
wireless network issues.

Its a known issue, and there is a fix in the works. The particular design is
warpped together with other features. This requires a bit more work, but it
should be worth the wait.

-kdf

dean
2004-04-30, 20:34
On Apr 30, 2004, at 3:41 PM, kdf wrote:
>> I'm not kdf and haven't been arround that long, but it isn't clear to
>> me who, if anyone, makes critical product decisions.
>
> Sean and Dean. Well, that's who I listen to anyway. For all I know,
> Dick Cheney
> is really behind the whole thing....
That's a lie. Karl Rove is the secret power behind Slim Devices.

-dean

dean
2004-04-30, 20:44
Hi Pat,

On Apr 30, 2004, at 3:21 PM, Pat Farrell wrote:
> I do think that the main FAQ and product literature should be more
> informative about what support is and is not provided. But that, like
> everything else, is just IMHO

Sorry if the documentation isn't clear enough. Here's our support
policy, in brief...

We officially support the customers who buy our hardware. If you have
a problem with your Squeezebox or SLIMP3, you can contact our customer
support staff, headed by Kevin Pearsall, at support (AT) slimdevices (DOT) com or
+1 650 210 9400 during regular business hours. We're proud of the
level of support we provide directly to our customers and we work hard
to make sure that everyone who buys our product is satisfied. That
e-mail address and phone number are in both the user guide and the FAQ.

Unfortunately, we can't afford to support everybody who downloads the
SlimServer software and hasn't bought the hardware. We try to help
out, but it's not really a sustainable business distributing free
software and supporting it for free. That's where this mailing list
can be a big help.

Kevin (as well as Sean and I) regularly participate here, but we do
rely on the community to help each other. Sometimes you'll get an
answer from one of us, sometimes you'll get an answer from another
member of the community. Occasionally, though, a posted question will
go unanswered. If you are a customer, feel free to contact us
directly.

Thanks,

dean