PDA

View Full Version : Not so smooth...



Pascal Herczog
2004-10-11, 04:41
Hi,

I wonder if anyone could comment on the following observations (using Slimserver 5.3.1, with Slimp3 player on XP):

1. Using the default formatting config (TITLE), browsing by directory for MP3 gives a sort order of 'artist', then 'title', HOWEVER, for FLACs it sorts them by 'title' first! Why??

2. Why does the default formatting of (TITLE) display as 'title' by 'artist' from 'album' ? I ask because it doesn't seem consistent with the other format definitions, e.g. if I just put 'artist', then that's all I see, when I might have expected it to say 'artist' with 'title' from 'album'.

3. In the formatting config, what determines that the display will use 'with', 'from' etc? In other words, what I really want is the format 'artist' with 'title' from 'album', but if I put these filler words in manually then they are all in bold font, making it hard to read. The default seems to put words like 'with', 'from' in a non-bold format compared to the artist name etc.

4. Do FLACs support the addition of jpegs in their tags, as with MP3's? If not, what is the best way to store the images when I have a directory full of flacs (recorded from 7" singles)?

5. I tried to use softsqueeze, but it was not so intuitive on where to find the option to start it. Is there an easy way to create a desktop shortcut to start it? Or could it be added to the Slimserver file menu?

6. Once I started softsqueeze, and then configured it (like giving it a name), it seems that on closing it, and restarting it, it comes up as an entirely new player (new mac address?) and shows up as 127.0.0.1, instead of using the previous name and configuration etc. How do you restart it so it comes back as the same player?

7. I couldn't seem to get perfect synchronisation with my slimp3 player. The softsqueeze was always a fraction of a second behind, which was quite noticable.

8. When I do a wipe cache for a complete rescan, would it be possible for Slimserver to update its scanning message to say that it has completed? Otherwise, seems I have to look at the CPU monitor to find out.

9. When playing FLACs, it seems that the FF and REW buttons on the Slimp3 remote _only_ skip to the end or start of the current song, they do NOT go through the song. Works fine for MP3's. I am beginning to wonder whether FLACs are really worth the trouble!

After all that, I do have a squeezebox on order this week, but it just doesn't seem to be so smooth just yet. Help with my questions would be much appreciated!

Thanks,
Pascal.

Daniel Cohen
2004-10-11, 07:01
On 11/10/04 at 12:41 pm +0100, Pascal Herczog wrote
>9. When playing FLACs, it seems that the FF and REW buttons on the
>Slimp3 remote _only_ skip to the end or start of the current song,
>they do NOT go through the song. Works fine for MP3's. I am
>beginning to wonder whether FLACs are really worth the trouble!

Yes, this is known. The buttons do not work on transcoded tracks
(such as FLAC to MP3, which is the current way to play FLACs).

What I'm not sure about is whether this restriction also applies to
the Song Scanner plugin. This (on MP3s) works well. Particularly
useful when the MP3 is long, combined with a modified plugin that
moves further with each press.
--
Daniel Cohen

kdf
2004-10-11, 10:17
Quoting Daniel Cohen <danco (AT) f2s (DOT) com>:

> On 11/10/04 at 12:41 pm +0100, Pascal Herczog wrote
> >9. When playing FLACs, it seems that the FF and REW buttons on the
> >Slimp3 remote _only_ skip to the end or start of the current song,
> >they do NOT go through the song. Works fine for MP3's. I am
> >beginning to wonder whether FLACs are really worth the trouble!
>
FLAC is worth the trouble becuase it is future-proof. its benefits have little
to do with slimserver support, tho that is a great bonus.

> Yes, this is known. The buttons do not work on transcoded tracks
> (such as FLAC to MP3, which is the current way to play FLACs).
>
> What I'm not sure about is whether this restriction also applies to
> the Song Scanner plugin. This (on MP3s) works well. Particularly
> useful when the MP3 is long, combined with a modified plugin that
> moves further with each press.
> --
I'm afraid it does apply to both. There is currently no easy way to index
within a file that it transcoded by an external tool. Flac does have the
ability to skip ahead, and it could be possible to patch th escanner
specifically to move to different offsets in a flac file and restart playback.
The playback architecture is in the process of a rewrite which will hopefully
better address this kind of issue. FLAC may still become a native playback for
slimserver as well, but only time will tell on that one.

-kdf

Jon Danforth
2004-10-11, 11:29
Since your ear is already tuned to the subject, can you comment on Apple
Lossless versus FLAC's longevity? I decided to rip my entire collection
using Apple Lossless since I really like how iTunes works as a music
management tool.

Thanks,
Jon

kdf wrote:

>Quoting Daniel Cohen <danco (AT) f2s (DOT) com>:
>
>
>
>>On 11/10/04 at 12:41 pm +0100, Pascal Herczog wrote
>>
>>
>>>9. When playing FLACs, it seems that the FF and REW buttons on the
>>>Slimp3 remote _only_ skip to the end or start of the current song,
>>>they do NOT go through the song. Works fine for MP3's. I am
>>>beginning to wonder whether FLACs are really worth the trouble!
>>>
>>>
>FLAC is worth the trouble becuase it is future-proof. its benefits have little
>to do with slimserver support, tho that is a great bonus.
>
>
>
>>Yes, this is known. The buttons do not work on transcoded tracks
>>(such as FLAC to MP3, which is the current way to play FLACs).
>>
>>What I'm not sure about is whether this restriction also applies to
>>the Song Scanner plugin. This (on MP3s) works well. Particularly
>>useful when the MP3 is long, combined with a modified plugin that
>>moves further with each press.
>>--
>>
>>
>I'm afraid it does apply to both. There is currently no easy way to index
>within a file that it transcoded by an external tool. Flac does have the
>ability to skip ahead, and it could be possible to patch th escanner
>specifically to move to different offsets in a flac file and restart playback.
>The playback architecture is in the process of a rewrite which will hopefully
>better address this kind of issue. FLAC may still become a native playback for
>slimserver as well, but only time will tell on that one.
>
>-kdf
>

Jason Holtzapple
2004-10-11, 11:52
The wealth of developer information (format specifications, api docs) available
for FLAC and its BSD-style license give me a warm fuzzy feeling about its future.

Are there similar documents available for Apple Lossless? I honestly don't know
as I haven't looked.

There's a FLAC Quicktime component for OSX that has been released. It is not a
stable version but some folks have had success with it. I can't locate the current
URL of the project though. This will give you some ability to organize FLAC files
in iTunes in OSX (no Windows version yet).

Jon Danforth wrote:
> Since your ear is already tuned to the subject, can you comment on Apple
> Lossless versus FLAC's longevity? I decided to rip my entire collection
> using Apple Lossless since I really like how iTunes works as a music
> management tool.

kdf
2004-10-11, 12:04
Quoting Jon Danforth <jdanforth (AT) sc (DOT) rr.com>:

> Since your ear is already tuned to the subject, can you comment on Apple
> Lossless versus FLAC's longevity? I decided to rip my entire collection
> using Apple Lossless since I really like how iTunes works as a music
> management tool.
>

when I say FLAC is future-proof, I refer to the fact that you can always recode
your tracks at any time without fearign loss of data. I cannot comment on the
logevity of Apple Lossless since it is a proprietary format, controlled by
apple. It is entirely up to apple when/if to discontinue it. FLAC is open
source, so should continue as long as there is someone will to host the
binaries and/or continue development.
-kdf