PDA

View Full Version : MOG for Squeezebox Announced



fuzzyT
2011-11-08, 08:09
Still gathering details. Blog post here:

http://blog.logitech.com/2011/11/08/new-music-service-sets-squeezebox-to-match-your-moods

Blog down at the moment...

fuzzyT
2011-11-08, 08:13
It's in the App Gallery:

http://www.mysqueezebox.com/appgallery

On 11/8/11 10:09 AM, Ron Thigpen wrote:
> Still gathering details. Blog post here:
>
> http://blog.logitech.com/2011/11/08/new-music-service-sets-squeezebox-to-match-your-moods
>
> Blog down at the moment...

mkozlows
2011-11-10, 07:51
Still gathering details. Blog post here:

I tried it out last night. I've had Rhapsody for some years, so that's the comparison I have. Main differences:

1. The sound quality is supposed to be better, at 320kbps vs. 192kbps, right? I think it was, but it was subtle enough that I couldn't swear that I'd pass a blind test. Slight win MOG.

2. The MOG Squeezebox UI is painfully bad compared to Rhapsody's. There's no way to do arbitrary browsing through genres (Rhapsody's genre browsing along with its key artists, top tracks, etc., make music discovery really great). Adding stuff to your favorites is only possible on an album (never a track) level, and not even consistently then.

2a. Your favorites/library behaves really weirdly: If you add an entire album to it, when you go in to view individual tracks, you don't see the songs from that album at all. But on the other hand, if you add an individual track from an album and go into the album view, you see its album but clicking on it gives you ALL the songs from that album. There's no way to see all the songs that you've chosen, and just the songs that you've chosen.

3. If you don't need mobile (phone) access, MOG is $5/month versus Rhapsody's $10/month. If you do want that, they're the same price at $10/month. (Rhapsody doesn't have a no-mobile plan.)

Upshot for me is that I'm cheap enough to probably go with MOG over Rhapsody for half the price, but if you want to use the mobile capabilities, Rhapsody is much better from a Squeezebox perspective, so I'd recommend that.

regalma1
2011-11-10, 09:39
I have had Spotify since it first came to the US. I love it but don't much care for the antiquated UI. So I signed up for a MOG trial. The UI on the web is much nicer. But using my Touch it is pretty much the same - rather lame. Ease of search is the single most important factor for me.

I ran a sound comparison between Spotify and MOG. The song I picked happened to be only 280 kbps on MOG but 320 on Spotify. Using my Touch and my Apogee mini DAC I couldn't pick up a difference with any certainty at all. I could fool myself easily enough. We all can and do that all the time. But once I forced myself to apply my best scientific discipline I had to admit I couldn't tell the difference.

I need to compare content next. That will be the deciding factor.

mkozlows
2011-11-10, 17:45
regalma, for search, the key is to get an Android (or presumably iOS) device with the app on it. Being able to search via actual keyboard is a huge, huge win.

RGibran
2011-11-10, 18:55
Adding stuff to your favorites is only possible on an album (never a track) level, and not even consistently then.

Long press on a now playing track brings up the 'more' window with options to add TRACK to favorites or playlist.

RG

MeSue
2011-11-10, 19:08
Adding stuff to your favorites is only possible on an album (never a track) level, and not even consistently then.


As RG said, you can add single songs from the track level context menu. This also gives you options to bookmark the album or artist. But yeah, Rhapsody it is easier because you don't have to drill down to track level for every option.




Upshot for me is that I'm cheap enough to probably go with MOG over Rhapsody for half the price, but if you want to use the mobile capabilities, Rhapsody is much better from a Squeezebox perspective, so I'd recommend that.

I'm gonna give it a little more time, and I still need to compare content, but I am leaning toward sticking with Rhapsody. Lack of browsing by genre is the whole reason I switched to Rhapsody after trying Spotify (my first on-demand music service experience). I also prefer how Rhapsody separates Singles and EPs from full-length albums. When you browse albums in MOG you can't tell if it's a single until you click into it and see only one song.

Really, my only complaint about Rhapsody is that the service overall does not support scrobbling, and when played through Squeezebox, Rhapsody channels are not scrobbled. If I do stick with Rhapsody I will likely add a paid subscription to either Last.fm or Slacker Basic to have a better radio option.

mkozlows
2011-11-10, 19:22
Long press on a now playing track brings up the 'more' window with options to add TRACK to favorites or playlist.

Thanks! That's good to know, and I hadn't thought to try it on the now playing list. (I did try it on the track listing, but it only brought up a menu with "None" as an option there.)

EDIT: By the way, I just went to cancel my Rhapsody subscription, as MOG had tipped over into usable-enough given this little tip, and they offered me "Rhapsody Basic" for $4.99. This turns out to be the same as MOG's $5 plan -- no mobile, but does work on Squeezebox, apparently -- so given the better UI of Rhapsody, I ended up switching to that at the same price and canceling MOG instead.

MeSue
2011-11-10, 19:53
I just went to cancel my Rhapsody subscription, as MOG had tipped over into usable-enough given this little tip, and they offered me "Rhapsody Basic" for $4.99. This turns out to be the same as MOG's $5 plan -- no mobile, but does work on Squeezebox, apparently -- so given the better UI of Rhapsody, I ended up switching to that at the same price and canceling MOG instead.

Good to know! I will factor that into my decision, as I'm still debating which to go with. I like the option to have mobile, but the reality is, I hardly ever use the mobile app, and could probably live without it.

rgro
2011-11-10, 20:10
I gave it a try.....no problem with getting it up and running---sort of. I liked the sound quality, but it was completely unusable for me. I experienced constant rebuffering which I suspect might have been due to the combination of the high bit rate and my "lowly" DSL connection. So, unfortunately, I had to cancel the free trial after just a couple of days.

I don't experience any problems with Pandora, Sky, etc. Every once in a while I get a little bout of rebuffering w/Rhapsody, but it's infrequent and when it does occur, it's typically around early evening/peak usage times. Too bad, I was kinda' hoping MOG would work out.......

jabba
2011-11-10, 22:20
I feel your pain, same buffering issues. My connection is pretty good, but I believe the combination of my server being 7.6.x, and only being able to use it through mysb.com, causes constant rebuffering. It is almost unusable.

I won't cancel the service as I get pretty good use of it through my iPhone, but wouldn't be nice if I can get it up and running on my audio system. From what I could hear, sound is awesome.

rgro
2011-11-11, 00:09
I feel your pain, same buffering issues. My connection is pretty good, but I believe the combination of my server being 7.6.x, and only being able to use it through mysb.com, causes constant rebuffering. It is almost unusable.

I won't cancel the service as I get pretty good use of it through my iPhone, but wouldn't be nice if I can get it up and running on my audio system. From what I could hear, sound is awesome.

Yeah, it's a little bit of a head-scratcher. I'm running 7.7.0, all wired connections, don't use mysb.com, etc., etc., but it was still a total bust. I tried it numerous times at different hours of the days always with the same result.

mherger
2011-11-11, 00:43
> I gave it a try.....no problem with getting it up and running---sort of.
> I liked the sound quality, but it was completely unusable for me. I
> experienced constant rebuffering which I suspect might have been due to
> the combination of the high bit rate and my "lowly" DSL connection.

What kind of connection are you using? Where are you living? And would you
have used a lower bitrate/quality stream if that option had been available?

--

Michael

mherger
2011-11-11, 00:44
> I'm gonna give it a little more time, and I still need to compare
> content, but I am leaning toward sticking with Rhapsody. Lack of
> browsing by genre is the whole reason I switched to Rhapsody after
> trying Spotify (my first on-demand music service experience).

Heh... I have no idea why we don't include browsing by genre... I'll
double-check.

--

Michael

mherger
2011-11-11, 02:03
> Heh... I have no idea why we don't include browsing by genre... I'll
> double-check.

The reason seems simple: they have poor API support for genres... "80s
Rock" would return a whopping 7 albums. "Rock" 17k - and no way to sort
them.

--

Michael

RGibran
2011-11-11, 08:26
Yeah, it's a little bit of a head-scratcher. I'm running 7.7.0, all wired connections, don't use mysb.com, etc., etc., but it was still a total bust. I tried it numerous times at different hours of the days always with the same result.

FWIW, my lowly DSL averages 2Mbps and I'm not experiencing any problems on a wired connection.

Are you able to stream 320Kbps radio streams like Avro Classical Light, amongst others?


RG

rgro
2011-11-11, 08:53
> I gave it a try.....no problem with getting it up and running---sort of.
> I liked the sound quality, but it was completely unusable for me. I
> experienced constant rebuffering which I suspect might have been due to
> the combination of the high bit rate and my "lowly" DSL connection.

What kind of connection are you using? Where are you living? And would you
have used a lower bitrate/quality stream if that option had been available?

--

Michael

Hi Michael...

My connection's a Centurylink (formerly known as Qwest) 1.5 mb DSL connection. I live in the Seattle area of Washington State. Honestly, the lower bit rate stream wouldn't have compelled me to use it.

Other than the higher quality stream and a lower price, I didn't feel that there were enough significant differences between MOG and Rhapsody to make me really want to change. I have many fairly large Rhapsody-resident playlists I'd have needed to try and reconstruct in MOG, and I actually somewhat preferred Rhapsody's search and overall UI. Content seemed roughly comparable, with maybe a slight edge going to Rhapsody. If higher bitrate the stream had worked perfectly, I might have wanted to make the effort, but.....

So, if there had been an option to use a lower bitrate stream, then all MOG would have offered me was a few dollars lower price and that alone wouldn't have made me want to either switch or sign up to MOG as an additional service (you'd think I have enough of them as it is, but I seem to use them all!).

jhonsberger@msn.com
2011-11-12, 13:25
Thanks! That's good to know, and I hadn't thought to try it on the now playing list. (I did try it on the track listing, but it only brought up a menu with "None" as an option there.)

EDIT: By the way, I just went to cancel my Rhapsody subscription, as MOG had tipped over into usable-enough given this little tip, and they offered me "Rhapsody Basic" for $4.99. This turns out to be the same as MOG's $5 plan -- no mobile, but does work on Squeezebox, apparently -- so given the better UI of Rhapsody, I ended up switching to that at the same price and canceling MOG instead.

Rhapsody's audio quality is horrid compared to MOG's .Thats why I will stick with MOG.

myrkle
2011-11-13, 00:11
Hi Michael...
My connection's a Centurylink (formerly known as Qwest) 1.5 mb DSL connection. I live in the Seattle area of Washington State. Honestly, the lower bit rate stream wouldn't have compelled me to use it.


In Seattle area as well; Comcast though (with normal 15-20 Mbs download speeds).

I signed up for the 14 day trial on Wednesday and listened for about 2 hours without a single pause to buffer.

Friday night, listened again, constant buffering pauses. Unusable. Same thing today (Saturday).

Noticed that in general that websites in our general area of the Northwest are quick, but lots of random sites from farther away will sometimes hang when navigating to them (say 6 or 7 seconds before there's a response). Upshot is I think it may be a routing problem up here. We've had two pretty significant wind storms over the last 48 hours; I'm hoping it will sort itself out in a couple of days.

jabba
2011-11-25, 13:22
Has this improved for you guys? I am still experiencing lots of buffering, but it looks like it is getting better. Sometime I can listen to a full song without interruptions, that suggests that it is either the MOG end, or mysb issue.

cmcneil
2011-11-25, 13:38
Has this improved for you guys? I am still experiencing lots of buffering, but it looks like it is getting better. Sometime I can listen to a full song without interruptions, that suggests that it is either the MOG end, or mysb issue.

Been using MOG non-stop since I signed up. This is with 3 SB3, one Radio, and one Duet. Everything is pointed at mysb.com (if that makes a diff?). We're on Verizon FIOS. Never have had any pause or rebuffering action at all... Using SqueezePad as a remote, response for browsing and searching etc seems as good as when I use my local server... actually I may be done running a server, I think MOG is incredible.

MeSue
2011-11-25, 13:51
Has this improved for you guys? I am still experiencing lots of buffering, but it looks like it is getting better. Sometime I can listen to a full song without interruptions, that suggests that it is either the MOG end, or mysb issue.

I don't know if it could be related, but I tried to use the MOG app on my iPod touch last night and nothing would play. I could browse but not play anything. I had been using it earlier with no problems. Checked their support pages and found no obvious mention of outages.

wilbert-vb
2011-11-29, 10:37
Hello there,

Just yesterday I learned that the Squeezebox server supports MOG and I'm very happy with that. I renewed my MOG subscription.

The plugin is working great, I figure that MOG is favorites oriented.
I managed my favorites on the website first.

I do have a request, though:

On an iPhone/Android MOG supports caching of tracks for offline listening as long as the subscription is valid.
Based on that idea I would like to preserve bandwidth by allocating a cache folder for streamed/downloaded tracks on the media server.
According to MOG the server design would not support this feature.

Is there any chance that you could make an improvement in this area, since there is a good chance customers will listen to the same tracks?

Thank you very much!

mherger
2011-11-30, 00:54
> Is there any chance that you could make an improvement in this area,
> since there is a good chance customers will listen to the same tracks?

No. Any storing of their data is explicitly prohibited in their terms of
use.

--
Michael