PDA

View Full Version : Firmware 34 - Is Volume Display is reversed?



Meshoulam, Arnon
2004-08-30, 03:50
Just upgraded firmware to 34 to fix the graphic issues (from 31), but
didn't upgrade the server from 3.0b1
Now, display is fine, but no sound - min or max volume!!

Any ideas?

Arnon

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
[mailto:discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com] On Behalf Of kdf
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 7:00 PM
To: Slim Devices Discussion
Subject: [slim] Firmware 34 - Is Volume Display is reversed?

I don't...but then again, that's because I fixed it ;)
cvs had the fix, tomorrow's nightly will as well.
-kdf

Quoting John Hunt <johnmhunt_gvc (AT) blueyonder (DOT) co.uk>:

> I see the reversal as well!
>
>
>
>
>
> John M Hunt
>
> www.gr8mobiledeals.com
>
> www.johnmhunt.com
>
> www.silveresk.co.uk
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com
> [mailto:discuss-bounces (AT) lists (DOT) slimdevices.com] On Behalf Of Patrick
Salt
> Sent: 28 August 2004 14:42
> To: 'Slim Devices Discussion'
> Subject: [slim] Firmware 34 - Is Volume Display is reversed?
>
>
>
> One thing I noticed on Firmware V34 in 28/08/04 build was that the
"volume"
> display appeared reversed (have new display)
>
>
>
> i.e. ( ********************) where ****** =
illuminated,
> as
> opposed to (********************* ).
>
>
>
> Am I going mad or a new feature to save display illumination at higher
output
> volume level?
>
>
>
> BTW - Had to go back to V33 to get stability back.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
>
> Pat
>
>
>
>

Richard Purdie
2004-08-30, 04:19
Meshoulam, Arnon:
> Just upgraded firmware to 34 to fix the graphic issues (from 31), but
> didn't upgrade the server from 3.0b1
> Now, display is fine, but no sound - min or max volume!!

For firmware 34 you need to upgrade the server as well...

--
RP

Philip Meyer
2004-08-30, 07:08
>i.e. if you decide to play all tracks by one artist (or genre), duplicate
>tracks are removed. I'd have thought that duplicates would be identified
>when both the artist and track name is the same on two or more tracks.
>
>If there is any interest, I'll put in a feature request.
>
I have a few "various artist" ambient albums that contain duplicates, so I would find this useful when I decide to queue up all my ambient tracks on shuffle by song.

I think we would need a bit more consideration of what a duplicate track is. I have a lot of electronic music and live music, where tracks don't have titles, and are thus called "track 1", etc. So I may have several albums from the same artist where the track names would match, but are in fact completely different.

It could also be that there are several different versions of the same song (remixes, live versions, etc). I feel that each users situation may be different. Perhaps there could be a configuration page in the web server that allows the user to define track comparison rules. Eg. specify a list of tag fields that would need to match for tracks to be considered equal. "Artist", "Track Name" would be a good default for most people, but it may be nice to make this configurable to include "Album", "Year" for example.

Phil