PDA

View Full Version : SlimServer - Still having problems with stream playback



KNUTE
2004-10-15, 19:22
Dear kdf, Thanks again for the helpful info. And as I wrote Sean,
I'm sorry, I certainly didn't mean to tick you guys off with my hope
that the speed-playback problem will be eventually "ironed-out" -- I had no
idea of the programming nightmare that apparently would be. Sorry!

Re my messy Library: It's not at all what I intend it to be right now. I have
deliberately put a wide variety of files in it now for testing...I'm still trying to
find the format that would be best. If only I knew what that was, I could begin
converting the files that I actually want in my Library. I've learned how to use
Audacity, a fine quality audio editor (free Open Source, to boot). And I've
downloaded GX::Transcoder, an audio batch converter, which I "hope" to
learn.
Now, if I learn that for instance it's best to have every file in my Library a
uniform "128kbps, 44,100Hz, Stereo, CBR" -- I can do it (difficult & time-
consuming as it may be).

If I understand correctly, the only need to make all the files uniform is so
that people wishing to stream my files, who only have MediaPlayer,
iTunes or WinAmp can stream them with no speed errors.
Otherwise, my library files could be a variety of formats if my Streamees
used SoftSqueeze....In a nutshell, is that what you're saying?
Oh, I suppose not, now that I re-read your post. Perhaps ther's some basic
stuff here that I'm misunderstanding...

I DO see that SoftSqueeze & the other 3 players are much the same, but I
understood that Streamees MUST additionally use the controls in their
browsers for the 3 Players, while you earlier said that SoftSqueeze does
NOT require a browser. I do understand that SoftSqueeze is the only Player
of the 4 which can, by itself, control playback. The reason I said I hoped
the browser could still be used with SSqueeze is simply so that people
can easily & quickly see & browse my library...& see my graphics & animations.
Perhaps SSqueeze can show a larger display, w/graphics; may well be that's
a feature I don't know about yet.

Re the other important subjects in your letter, I guess I should cover some of them
separately. But one last thing here - You're right that "MaximumPC/MinimumBS" magazine
assumes a certain class of readership; I sneak reads of it anyway. :)

seanadams
2004-10-15, 20:46
Knute,

To clarify:

This is not a bug in our software. It is a bug in winamp/iTunes. We
can't fix it because it's not our software.

The best solution, as suggested, is to fix up your mp3s so they don't
have different number of channels (mono/stereo) or different sample
rates (44.1 vs 22.050). Having different formats jumbled together like
this is likely to confuse quite a lot of playback software.

Sorry to get technical - we're just trying to give you as much info as
possible.

Sean

On Oct 15, 2004, at 7:22 PM, KNUTE wrote:

> Dear kdf, Thanks again for the helpful info. And as I wrote Sean,
> I'm sorry, I certainly didn't mean to tick you guys off with my hope
> that the speed-playback problem will be eventually "ironed-out" -- I
> had no
> idea of the programming nightmare that apparently would be. Sorry!
>
> Re my messy Library: It's not at all what I intend it to be right
> now. I have
> deliberately put a wide variety of files in it now for testing...I'm
> still trying to
> find the format that would be best. If only I knew what that was, I
> could begin
> converting the files that I actually want in my Library. I've learned
> how to use
> Audacity, a fine quality audio editor (free Open Source, to boot).
> And I've
> downloaded GX::Transcoder, an audio batch converter, which I "hope" to
> learn.
> Now, if I learn that for instance it's best to have every file in my
> Library a
> uniform "128kbps, 44,100Hz, Stereo, CBR" -- I can do it (difficult &
> time-
> consuming as it may be).
>
> If I understand correctly, the only need to make all the files uniform
> is so
> that people wishing to stream my files, who only have MediaPlayer,
> iTunes or WinAmp can stream them with no speed errors.
> Otherwise, my library files could be a variety of formats if my
> Streamees
> used SoftSqueeze....In a nutshell, is that what you're saying?
> Oh, I suppose not, now that I re-read your post. Perhaps ther's some
> basic
> stuff here that I'm misunderstanding...
>
> I DO see that SoftSqueeze & the other 3 players are much the same, but
> I
> understood that Streamees MUST additionally use the controls in their
> browsers for the 3 Players, while you earlier said that SoftSqueeze
> does
> NOT require a browser. I do understand that SoftSqueeze is the only
> Player
> of the 4 which can, by itself, control playback. The reason I said I
> hoped
> the browser could still be used with SSqueeze is simply so that people
> can easily & quickly see & browse my library...& see my graphics &
> animations.
> Perhaps SSqueeze can show a larger display, w/graphics; may well be
> that's
> a feature I don't know about yet.
>
> Re the other important subjects in your letter, I guess I should cover
> some of them
> separately. But one last thing here - You're right that
> "MaximumPC/MinimumBS" magazine
> assumes a certain class of readership; I sneak reads of it anyway. :)
>

kdf
2004-10-15, 22:46
Quoting KNUTE <knute-m (AT) cox (DOT) net>:

> Dear kdf, Thanks again for the helpful info. And as I wrote Sean,
> I'm sorry, I certainly didn't mean to tick you guys off with my hope
> that the speed-playback problem will be eventually "ironed-out" -- I had no
> idea of the programming nightmare that apparently would be. Sorry!

s'ok. i just began to think you were having a go. There really isn't much
slimserver can do about third party clients and a given music library.

>
> Re my messy Library: It's not at all what I intend it to be right now. I
> have
> deliberately put a wide variety of files in it now for testing...I'm still
> trying to
> find the format that would be best. If only I knew what that was, I could
> begin
> converting the files that I actually want in my Library. I've learned how to
> use
> Audacity, a fine quality audio editor (free Open Source, to boot). And I've
> downloaded GX::Transcoder, an audio batch converter, which I "hope" to
> learn.
> Now, if I learn that for instance it's best to have every file in my Library
> a
> uniform "128kbps, 44,100Hz, Stereo, CBR" -- I can do it (difficult & time-
> consuming as it may be).

128kbps is a good standard. kinda tinny, but passable. Just make sure to stick
with 44.1kHz and stereo. That's the main thing. 128kbps or 192, etc all come
down to how good you want for sound quality. Given that you are streaming most
of the time, you may not want to bother with the higher numbers.

>
> If I understand correctly, the only need to make all the files uniform is so
> that people wishing to stream my files, who only have MediaPlayer,
> iTunes or WinAmp can stream them with no speed errors.
> Otherwise, my library files could be a variety of formats if my Streamees
> used SoftSqueeze....In a nutshell, is that what you're saying?
> Oh, I suppose not, now that I re-read your post. Perhaps ther's some basic
> stuff here that I'm misunderstanding...
>

you are getting it. uniform is good.

> I DO see that SoftSqueeze & the other 3 players are much the same, but I
> understood that Streamees MUST additionally use the controls in their
> browsers for the 3 Players, while you earlier said that SoftSqueeze does
> NOT require a browser. I do understand that SoftSqueeze is the only Player
> of the 4 which can, by itself, control playback. The reason I said I hoped
> the browser could still be used with SSqueeze is simply so that people
> can easily & quickly see & browse my library...& see my graphics &
> animations.
> Perhaps SSqueeze can show a larger display, w/graphics; may well be that's
> a feature I don't know about yet.
>
softsqueeze does have a full screen mode with playlist and cover art. It is
also workign towards having a library browsing feature. the good part about
softsqueeze is that each time you downlload slimserver, any of yoru friends who
use it will automatically get updated with the latest softsqueeze. if they
still want to use the web browser, they can.


> Re the other important subjects in your letter, I guess I should cover some
> of them
> separately. But one last thing here - You're right that
> "MaximumPC/MinimumBS" magazine
> assumes a certain class of readership; I sneak reads of it anyway. :)

its like asking how hot are the hot wings. one person will tell you they'll
take yoru head off, yet another wont even break a sweat. When MaxPC says
anyone can do it, they usually mean someone probably a bit more used to
downloading and installing stuff they find on the net.

cheers,
kdf

jacobdp
2004-10-16, 06:25
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 22:46:04 -0700, kdf <slim-mail (AT) deane-freeman (DOT) com> wrote:
> When MaxPC says
> anyone can do it, they usually mean someone probably a bit more used to
> downloading and installing stuff they find on the net.

Roku? :-)

- Jacob