PDA

View Full Version : Synchronizing



KDCgrp
2009-02-20, 05:35
Just picked up a Boom to add to my two Duet receivers. The Boom is very nice and, so far, is working great. One question; synchronizing all three doesn't seem to be very intuitive. I can sync via the controller menu and Squeezecenter interface two sources (ie the Boom to one of my two receivers) but not all three simultaneously. For example, selecting 'Sync Main Room to Boom' deselects the current sync to Bedroom. Anyone know what I am missing?

slimpy
2009-02-20, 05:50
You have to choose one player as the "master" and sync the other two players to this master.
If Main Room is synced to Bedroom then Bedroom is the master.
You then need to sync the Boom to the Bedroom.

What you did was that you told the Main Room to disconnect from Bedroom and instead synch with the Boom.

-s.

KDCgrp
2009-02-20, 06:27
Thanks for your reply and that makes sense. However, I guess I need a specific explanation as to how to sync all three sources - and how to choose a master source.

KDCgrp
2009-02-20, 06:45
Well, something's different now because I can choose to sync all three sources (which I could not before). I guess I got it - thanks again!

Dogberry2
2009-02-20, 07:18
The synchronize menu on the Controller took a turn for the worse with 7.3 (if I recall correctly). It used to be so simple a six-year old blind child could do it: go to Synchronize, there's a list of all other players, just check the ones you want synched with the current player. Nothing to it. I added Synchronize to my top-level home menu, and could turn sync on or off among any players quickly, easily, and intuitively. There was no "master" and there was no need for one. The new sync methodology is, by comparison, needlessly messy and counter-intuitive. An example of "fixing" something that wasn't broken and didn't need to be messed with, and in the process making things worse.

If someone at Slim puts the Controller sync architecture back to the way it was in an upcoming release, I'll send 'em a bottle of whatever they want to drink. Just sayin'.

slimpy
2009-02-20, 07:39
The synchronize menu on the Controller took a turn for the worse with 7.3 (if I recall correctly). It used to be so simple a six-year old blind child could do it: go to Synchronize, there's a list of all other players, just check the ones you want synched with the current player. Nothing to it. I added Synchronize to my top-level home menu, and could turn sync on or off among any players quickly, easily, and intuitively. There was no "master" and there was no need for one. The new sync methodology is, by comparison, needlessly messy and counter-intuitive. An example of "fixing" something that wasn't broken and didn't need to be messed with, and in the process making things worse.

If someone at Slim puts the Controller sync architecture back to the way it was in an upcoming release, I'll send 'em a bottle of whatever they want to drink. Just sayin'.
At least synchronization is now consistent across the controller, player and web interfaces.
The controller's synch direction worked just in the opposite way as all other interfaces.
In the web interface (or on the player display) you chose player A and then you were able to synch that player to some other player, thus making A the slave of another player (This is how synching works today on all interfaces).

On the controller however, you chose player A and synched to some other player. This made A the master and all other players slaves.
Not exactly intuitive for someone used to synching players way before the controller was invented.

-s.

Dogberry2
2009-02-20, 12:42
The Controller has a more versatile interface than the older SBs; handcuffing it to the past might make it more consistent with the others, but it doesn't take advantage of the expanded screen size and scrolling capability. The original sync design made perfect sense for the Controller; the new one makes synchronizing several players more laborious. Instead of being able to synchronize several players all at once, from the same screen, you have to flip-flop back and forth, changing players and going into and out of different menu screens. Making things more difficult and complicated on newer products solely to achieve a misguided notion of consistency with older, less versatile products, isn't exactly a step forward. There are other ways in which the operation of the Controller is not "consistent" with the Classic or SB1.

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."

aubuti
2009-02-20, 14:33
The Controller has a more versatile interface than the older SBs; handcuffing it to the past might make it more consistent with the others, but it doesn't take advantage of the expanded screen size and scrolling capability. The original sync design made perfect sense for the Controller; the new one makes synchronizing several players more laborious. Instead of being able to synchronize several players all at once, from the same screen, you have to flip-flop back and forth, changing players and going into and out of different menu screens. Making things more difficult and complicated on newer products solely to achieve a misguided notion of consistency with older, less versatile products, isn't exactly a step forward. There are other ways in which the operation of the Controller is not "consistent" with the Classic or SB1.

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."
Please, let's not twist old RWE's words. The full quotation is "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." Especially because making the behavior consistent across products is not foolish. You get headaches wrapping your head around the 7.3 sync design, and those of us with a mixture of Classics, Booms, Transporters and SBCs got headaches under 7.0 - 7.2 moving from one device to another ("Hmm, will this button push this player into another sync group, or pull the other player into this sync group?").

Dogberry2
2009-02-20, 15:22
Please, let's not twist old RWE's words. The full quotation is "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds." Especially because making the behavior consistent across products is not foolish. You get headaches wrapping your head around the 7.3 sync design, and those of us with a mixture of Classics, Booms, Transporters and SBCs got headaches under 7.0 - 7.2 moving from one device to another ("Hmm, will this button push this player into another sync group, or pull the other player into this sync group?").I don't think it's terribly difficult to recognize which remote is in one's hand. The Controller doesn't look a thing like the older remotes, so knowing that it's different shouldn't really cause headaches. Why handcuff the UI of the Controller to the limitations of earlier architecture and the original (arbitrary) choice of push or pull? New-and-improved is not compatible with just-like-before. To make things better, they have to be made different. The pre-7.3 sync menu for the Controller worked well and was simple, quick, and elegant; an entire sync group could be set up from one screen with minimal navigation. The new way takes much more time and effort. That's the headache, and yes, it is foolish. Ralph would be appalled.

aubuti
2009-02-20, 15:43
I don't think it's terribly difficult to recognize which remote is in one's hand. The Controller doesn't look a thing like the older remotes, so knowing that it's different shouldn't really cause headaches. Why handcuff the UI of the Controller to the limitations of earlier architecture and the original (arbitrary) choice of push or pull? New-and-improved is not compatible with just-like-before. To make things better, they have to be made different. The pre-7.3 sync menu for the Controller worked well and was simple, quick, and elegant; an entire sync group could be set up from one screen with minimal navigation. The new way takes much more time and effort. That's the headache, and yes, it is foolish. Ralph would be appalled.
Seriously, Ralph would be appalled at either of us whining about how the old way or the new way is "too hard". In fact, neither one is really that difficult. But neither is the ideal solution, or even an ideal compromise. I've read somewhere on these forums (so it must be true) that many of the developers aren't happy with the current sync UI, so I expect there are more changes coming our way. But I'd be surprised if they looked exactly like anything we've seen before.

Dogberry2
2009-02-20, 18:39
Seriously, Ralph would be appalled at either of us whining about how the old way or the new way is "too hard". In fact, neither one is really that difficult. But neither is the ideal solution, or even an ideal compromise. I've read somewhere on these forums (so it must be true) that many of the developers aren't happy with the current sync UI, so I expect there are more changes coming our way. But I'd be surprised if they looked exactly like anything we've seen before.
You're absolutely correct. Truth is, neither way is really a big-deal issue; it's not as if I switch multiple players in and out of sync groups twenty times a day. I've almost always agreed with your position on nearly everything you post, and I've also gleaned a number of helpful nuggets of information out of the things you've said, and on this particular issue we just happen to differ in opinion. And Emerson would merely shake his head at both of us. In the big Slim scheme, it's a very minor point.

slimpy
2009-02-21, 06:29
I don't think it's terribly difficult to recognize which remote is in one's hand. The Controller doesn't look a thing like the older remotes, so knowing that it's different shouldn't really cause headaches. Why handcuff the UI of the Controller to the limitations of earlier architecture and the original (arbitrary) choice of push or pull? New-and-improved is not compatible with just-like-before. To make things better, they have to be made different. The pre-7.3 sync menu for the Controller worked well and was simple, quick, and elegant; an entire sync group could be set up from one screen with minimal navigation. The new way takes much more time and effort. That's the headache, and yes, it is foolish. Ralph would be appalled.
You shouldn't even have to recognize which remote is in your hands.
It should be intuitive no matter what interface you use.
If even die-hard users get headaches trying to remember how synchronization works on a specific UI...
The synch UI is far from perfect right now but "At least synchronization is now consistent [...]".

Just the opinion of a small mind.

-s.

peter
2009-02-24, 14:25
Dogberry2 wrote:
> aubuti;398831 Wrote:
>
>> Seriously, Ralph would be appalled at either of us whining about how the
>> old way or the new way is "too hard". In fact, neither one is really
>> that difficult. But neither is the ideal solution, or even an ideal
>> compromise. I've read somewhere on these forums (so it must be true)
>> that many of the developers aren't happy with the current sync UI, so I
>> expect there are more changes coming our way. But I'd be surprised if
>> they looked exactly like anything we've seen before.
>>
> You're absolutely correct. Truth is, neither way is really a big-deal
> issue; it's not as if I switch multiple players in and out of sync
> groups twenty times a day. I've almost always agreed with your position
> on nearly everything you post, and I've also gleaned a number of helpful
> nuggets of information out of the things you've said, and on this
> particular issue we just happen to differ in opinion. And Emerson would
> merely shake his head at both of us. In the big Slim scheme, it's a very
> minor point.
>

Wouldn't it be a good idea if you could define sync-presets with the SC
web interface (or any other interface) and then choose them by name with
the controller or ir-remote?

I suppose the number of useful sync-combinations would be limited in
most households (no, no, not all, don't bother point that out). This
could be added to the existing sync-interface.

Regards,
Peter

peter
2009-02-24, 14:28
slimpy wrote:
> Dogberry2;398828 Wrote:
>
>> I don't think it's terribly difficult to recognize which remote is in
>> one's hand. The Controller doesn't look a thing like the older remotes,
>> so knowing that it's different shouldn't really cause headaches. Why
>> handcuff the UI of the Controller to the limitations of earlier
>> architecture and the original (arbitrary) choice of push or pull?
>> New-and-improved is not compatible with just-like-before. To make
>> things better, they have to be made different. The pre-7.3 sync menu
>> for the Controller worked well and was simple, quick, and elegant; an
>> entire sync group could be set up from one screen with minimal
>> navigation. The new way takes much more time and effort. That's the
>> headache, and yes, it is foolish. Ralph would be appalled.
>>
> You shouldn't even have to recognize which remote is in your hands.
>
That would be the case if my preset-model was adopted ;)

Regards,
Peter

slimpy
2009-02-24, 16:45
Wouldn't it be a good idea if you could define sync-presets with the SC
web interface (or any other interface) and then choose them by name with
the controller or ir-remote?

I suppose the number of useful sync-combinations would be limited in
most households (no, no, not all, don't bother point that out). This
could be added to the existing sync-interface.
I think the Synchronizer plugin already does something like this.
Haven't tried it myself, though.

-s.

autopilot
2009-02-25, 07:08
I think the Synchronizer plugin already does something like this.
Haven't tried it myself, though.

-s.

indeed it does. Its simple and brilliant. I think the current sbc's way of doing sync is petty poor imo, but this plugin goes a long way in bridging the gap. Essential imo.