PDA

View Full Version : Hardware and OS architecture



bhaagensen
2009-09-06, 01:34
Hi

i was wondering what the more general hardware specs of the Touch and Radio are. Im thinking CPU, RAM and such. Im assuming its running some kind of Linux based OS. Given All the talk about TinySC im also guessing the Touch at least has enough horse power to do other tasks. Torrent client, samba server, nfs, mail, and such. This would be really cool for me anyway. But hos feasible is it?

Bjørn

Mark Lanctot
2009-09-08, 08:46
What the beta testers were initially informed:

400MHz ARM11 CPU
128MB DDR2 SDRAM
128MB NAND Flash

Current processors are clocked at 533 MHz though.

Radio uses a 400 MHz ARM9 CPU.

SqueezeOS is a customized 2.6.26.8 Linux kernel with certain packages installed, SqueezePlay and TinySC being the big ones.

As to what you could run on Touch, I believe it already runs a samba server. Regarding the other things, if TinySC weren't running there would be a fair amount of resources available, but TinySC consumes a lot of them. It's not a general-purpose computer, though it is fairly powerful.

You do have access through SSH on both devices, and on the Controller as well.

funkstar
2009-09-08, 09:00
I'm sure the Touch could handle a lot more than just SqueezePlay (the interface and player) and TinySC, but then you'll probably run into problems with something interrupting playback. This is the reason they are reluctant to enable plugins for TinySC, in case they interfere with smooth playback.

Mark Lanctot
2009-09-08, 09:03
Oh any packages you install need to be compiled for the ARM architecture, of course.

bluegaspode
2009-09-08, 11:05
400MHz ARM11 CPU
128MB DDR2 SDRAM
128MB NAND Flash

So that's what powers my little Linkstation LS-CHL NAS as well :)

bhaagensen
2009-09-08, 13:25
I'm sure the Touch could handle a lot more than just SqueezePlay (the interface and player) and TinySC, but then you'll probably run into problems with something interrupting playback. This is the reason they are reluctant to enable plugins for TinySC, in case they interfere with smooth playback.

I see. Is TinySC needed when operating the Touch just like, say a regular SB3? To the extent that it can actually be shut down? But I certainly see the problem. Its a bit hard to predict whether it would help and most likely borderline with respect to streaming reliability, but perhaps someone hacking the thing could make sure that any "third-party" processes gets reniced to 0?

funkstar
2009-09-08, 13:38
I see. Is TinySC needed when operating the Touch just like, say a regular SB3? To the extent that it can actually be shut down? But I certainly see the problem. Its a bit hard to predict whether it would help and most likely borderline with respect to streaming reliability, but perhaps someone hacking the thing could make sure that any "third-party" processes gets reniced to 0?

TinySC is not a hard and fast requirement, it will function just as well (or better depending on your stand point) with a regular SC or SN. If it isn't being used, TinySC can be shut down and will take zero processing power. I believe it is also dropped from memory at this point too.

Mark Lanctot
2009-09-10, 07:00
Complete specs on both new devices on http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.php/HardwareComparison

klaasje
2009-09-12, 05:06
if it's able to run an smb server, smbfs (the smb client) shouldn't be a problem. Does anybody know if it's installed by default? even if it's only configurable via ssh, being able to use their smb/upnp nasses would remove a huge obstacle to buying a squeezebox for at least two of my friends.

bebop
2009-09-12, 07:27
Here's the data sheet on DAC in the Touch :

http://www.asahi-kasei.co.jp/akm/en/product/ak4420/ak4420.html

Same manufacturer as the one in the transporter, but slightly lower specs(Of course) seems that i runs 24 bit all the time no matter what(transporter DAC runs 16/20/24 bit).

bhaagensen
2009-09-12, 08:47
Probably OT, but since the original q. is essentially answered and I'm the OP, why not:)


that i runs 24 bit all the time no matter what(transporter DAC runs 16/20/24 bit).

Really, I was under the impression that the TP, and all other Squeezeboxes, ran 24-bit (at the converter) always. Is this not the case? Anyway, if this was an issue, which it afaik is not for many reasons, that would make the best case performance of the Touch potentially worse than the other Squeezeboxes.

What I don't understand is this interest in the exact make and model of the DAC-chip expressed here and in other threads. It alone is clearly far from sufficient for obtaining the output quality of the TP. If folks so badly want the same chip as the TP, just get the EMU-404 soundcard which retails for well under 200USD. This truly puzzles me???

Mark Lanctot
2009-09-12, 11:05
Really, I was under the impression that the TP, and all other Squeezeboxes, ran 24-bit (at the converter) always. Is this not the case?

I believe so - this allows for volume control on 16-bit material with no loss of resolution.

funkstar
2009-09-12, 12:47
If folks so badly want the same chip as the TP...
Then get a Transporter :D

As Sean Adams has said on many occations, just looking at the specs of the DAC really tells you nothing. It's all to do with the design of the circuits surrounding the DAC etc. The worlds best DAC on a bad implementation will probably perform worse than an average DAC in an idea implementation.