PDA

View Full Version : Wow -so happy!



aolsson
2012-03-23, 08:52
I have been thinking of a networked sound system for a while and been drooling over the apparent simplicity of setting up a Sonos system. But with a few other investments I found that I should look for more financially viable options. Hence my (initial) purchase of one Sqz Radio and one Sqz Duet (one more Duet coming soon for another home stereo).

Even with the reconfigureation of my Nas (Western Digital) the setup has been a breeze and everything just works together. The most difficult bit har been turning the "wheel" to set up the account and password things. My music library plays, my radio stations play and I will have Deezer set up in no time.

Some tricky bits I have found:
- It is not immediatelly obvious how to synchronize the music library with squeezebox server.
- While I know how to start playing stuff I do not yet know the best method to stop playing. Have been looking for a stop button on the remote or the radio but not found one yet. At least the radio has a power off. Works for now.

Mnyb
2012-03-23, 09:28
I have been thinking of a networked sound system for a while and been drooling over the apparent simplicity of setting up a Sonos system. But with a few other investments I found that I should look for more financially viable options. Hence my (initial) purchase of one Sqz Radio and one Sqz Duet (one more Duet coming soon for another home stereo).

Even with the reconfigureation of my Nas (Western Digital) the setup has been a breeze and everything just works together. The most difficult bit har been turning the "wheel" to set up the account and password things. My music library plays, my radio stations play and I will have Deezer set up in no time.

Some tricky bits I have found:
- It is not immediatelly obvious how to synchronize the music library with squeezebox server.
- While I know how to start playing stuff I do not yet know the best method to stop playing. Have been looking for a stop button on the remote or the radio but not found one yet. At least the radio has a power off. Works for now.

Holding pause a bit longer gives you stop

Edit: and welcome to the forum

aubuti
2012-03-23, 12:14
Some tricky bits I have found:
- It is not immediatelly obvious how to synchronize the music library with squeezebox server.
- While I know how to start playing stuff I do not yet know the best method to stop playing. Have been looking for a stop button on the remote or the radio but not found one yet. At least the radio has a power off. Works for now.
Welcome. I don't really understand your first point. If you just point LMS (Logitech Media Server) at the music folder(s) on your hard drive, then it reads it. There isn't any synchronization necessary. If you add tracks/albums, then you need to do a rescan of the library (see the Settings page on the LMS web interface).

stop = press-and-hold pause for a few seconds

Enjoy!

aolsson
2012-03-24, 06:19
Thank for the information on the stop function - that was very helpful.

As for the need to "synchronize" i must explain that I run the Squeezebox Server on a Western Digital NAS drive. After I move new ripped tracks to this unit (shared music folder) i have to log on to the Squeezebox server and find a tiny ikon in tha bottom right corner (labeled "settings") and do a "scan for new or changed music". The trick was to associate "settings" with the scan for new music.

Another "quirk" I have recognized is a difference between the player in the Squeezebox Radio and the player that camet with the Duet: I ripped a disk using Windows media player to a compressed WMA format. This played fine on the Sqz Radio - but not on the Sqz Duet. I re-ripped the disk using FLAC format using Win-Amp and now it plays on both. Problem with Win-Amp is that is often does not find the album graphics.

Soulkeeper
2012-03-24, 07:22
The NAS probably lacks the computing power to real-time transcode WMA to a format that the Receiver can play. The Radio is a little bit newer technology and decodes WMA natively. One solution would be to run LMS/SBS on a more powerful computer. You can do that without moving your music files off your NAS, if you have a "server" computer available.

toby10
2012-03-24, 08:59
Your issues are due to the limitations of NAS devices....

Scan: PC's & Mac's have a Control Panel option to access such functions like scan/rescan without having to launch the entire LMS web UI then entering Settings, this is not available on NAS installs.

WMA: NAS devices require special audio codec packages to recognize & play WMA files, but as suggested even if you have such NAS codecs the NAS may not have enough horse power to transcode them.

aolsson
2012-03-25, 01:20
Yep. So - since I have lots of space on the NAS and basically only intend to use it for the music I've decided on using WAV format. That I have verified plays on all units.

I have also found that when the program that rips cd:s can't find the album graphics I can just scan the CD-cover and place a jpeg named "Folder.jpg" on the disk.

andynormancx
2012-03-25, 02:07
Using WAV is a bad idea, there isn't a reliable way of tagging with WAV. Use FLAC.

aubuti
2012-03-25, 10:24
As for the need to "synchronize" i must explain that I run the Squeezebox Server on a Western Digital NAS drive. After I move new ripped tracks to this unit (shared music folder) i have to log on to the Squeezebox server and find a tiny ikon in tha bottom right corner (labeled "settings") and do a "scan for new or changed music". The trick was to associate "settings" with the scan for new music.
Okay, so you were only referring to adding the newly ripped tracks to LMS's database. If opening up LMS's web interface is too annoying, I'm pretty sure there are plugins that will let you do it from the player's interface. I know I have it on my SB2s and SB3/Classic, but I'm not sure if it also works with the Duet Controller or Radio, or if there is an applet that will do the trick. Rescanning is just a simple CLI command that gets sent to LMS.

Mnyb
2012-03-25, 17:04
Okay, so you were only referring to adding the newly ripped tracks to LMS's database. If opening up LMS's web interface is too annoying, I'm pretty sure there are plugins that will let you do it from the player's interface. I know I have it on my SB2s and SB3/Classic, but I'm not sure if it also works with the Duet Controller or Radio, or if there is an applet that will do the trick. Rescanning is just a simple CLI command that gets sent to LMS.

For no good reason at all they turned down requests to also have rescan as an option in squeezeplay ?
So not on radio or touch or controller , but available from the old players by default.

And on iPeng :)

bluegaspode
2012-03-25, 22:57
And on iPeng :)
And on SqueezePad

iquadius
2012-07-15, 15:53
Using WAV is a bad idea, there isn't a reliable way of tagging with WAV. Use FLAC.

Why does everyone try to put people off using WAV ............. my music library is currently 3500+ albums 95%+ ripped as WAV and all tagged correctly with appropriate artwork ..... vast majority of people use windows based pc's which all come with windows media player and it does a superb job of ripping and creating artist/album folders as required ...... crack on with the WAV format ...... it just sounds 'right'

aubuti
2012-07-15, 16:00
Try moving those wav files to any software other than WMP and you'll find your metadata and album art disappear. That's because WMP does not write that info to the wav files, but stores it in WMP's own database.

Also, if you haven't changed your LMS defaults, then it is probably converting those WAV to FLAC before streaming it to your SBs anyway. Lossless is lossless, and WAV doesn't sound any different from FLAC (or AIFF, or ALAC).

garym
2012-07-15, 16:02
Why does everyone try to put people off using WAV ............. my music library is currently 3500+ albums 95%+ ripped as WAV and all tagged correctly with appropriate artwork ..... vast majority of people use windows based pc's which all come with windows media player and it does a superb job of ripping and creating artist/album folders as required ...... crack on with the WAV format ...... it just sounds 'right'

You can certainly use what works best for you. But no standard tagging for one thing. Not to mention the fully discredited idea that wav files sound better than FLAC files. And WMP is certainly not a secure ripper that can guarantee bit perfect rips. For windows, those would be either dbpoweramp or EAC. Good news is that another dbpa product, PerfectTunes (now in beta), can do after the fact matches with the accuraterip database. Not sure if it works with wav files.

iquadius
2012-07-15, 16:42
of course everyone should use what suits them best, its just I feel WAV gets a raw deal and is discounted by others before they have an oportunity to hear for themselves. If you apply the same logic re lossless is lossless and they all sound the same to the process of ripping i.e. blind listening as is suggested I fear you will also hear no difference at all no matter what program you use. I use WMP simply as a ripping/burning tool (no need for extra software cluttering your machine and every windows pc has it) and use 3rd party software for the tagging/artwork processing (though WMP does get most of the art right) so files are also fine with other software too .... I decided to use WAV only after I learnt that it was possible AND after many hours of listening to both file types on a very explicit system (belonging to a friend) we both simply had a preference and enjoyed listening to WAV more.

p.s. I am not totally anti FLAC ....... I do have some of those as well

happy listening

p.p.s .......... how do you modify your profile to include system details at the bottom of posts ........

JJZolx
2012-07-15, 16:57
Why does everyone try to put people off using WAV ............. my music library is currently 3500+ albums 95%+ ripped as WAV and all tagged correctly with appropriate artwork ..... vast majority of people use windows based pc's which all come with windows media player and it does a superb job of ripping and creating artist/album folders as required ...... crack on with the WAV format ...... it just sounds 'right'

Because with the way Squeezeboxes work, keeping WAV files is never necessary. If you feel WAV sounds better, then you can easily configure your server to take Flac (or pretty much any other lossless format), decode it at the server and stream it as WAV. Flac is probably best, since the resources required to decode it are extremely low.

iquadius
2012-07-15, 17:11
Because with the way Squeezeboxes work, keeping WAV files is never necessary. If you feel WAV sounds better, then you can easily configure your server to take Flac (or pretty much any other lossless format), decode it at the server and stream it as WAV. Flac is probably best, since the resources required to decode it are extremely low.

..... I knew it wasn't necessary, just preferable. To me.
sometimes when 'beginners' mention WAV they are bombarded by 'experts' or 'senior members' who say noooooooo never dont do it. All I wanted to say was yes, it IS possible - give it a go and see for yourself. If someone wishes to do something a particular way, then why not help them along that path. I am simply an advocater of WAV as a file format because I listened and had a preference ......

good night everyone.

JJZolx
2012-07-15, 17:24
sometimes when 'beginners' mention WAV they are bombarded by 'experts' or 'senior members' who say noooooooo never dont do it. All I wanted to say was yes, it IS possible - give it a go and see for yourself. If someone wishes to do something a particular way, then why not help them along that path. I am simply an advocater of WAV as a file format because I listened and had a preference ......

Possible and preferable are two different things. A lot of foolish things are possible.

There's zero reason why WAV would be preferable when you can decode other formats at the server and stream them as WAV. Add to that the lack of universal support for WAV tagging, and the simple fact that it requires at least 50% more storage space than Flac.

garym
2012-07-15, 18:49
p.p.s .......... how do you modify your profile to include system details at the bottom of posts ........

click on settings in the menu at top of page (below logitech squeezebox, above forum and what's new. In settings, there is a place to edit signature.

aubuti
2012-07-15, 20:15
I decided to use WAV only after I learnt that it was possible AND after many hours of listening to both file types on a very explicit system (belonging to a friend) we both simply had a preference and enjoyed listening to WAV more.
Did you and your friend compare WAV and FLAC double-blind? And after disabling replaygain? I have and couldn't detect any difference. You can say that my system isn't explicit enough, or my ears are too diminished, or I don't know what to listen for. And I can say that any FLAC transcodes to an identical WAV, and vice versa, which is easily demonstrable.

If you haven't done a double-blind comparison, you owe it to yourself. Software for doing so -- quite easily -- is available in the attics of this forum: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?21545-AB-Testing-Support

EDIT: Sorry, I overlooked this part of the post in my response:

I use WMP simply as a ripping/burning tool (no need for extra software cluttering your machine and every windows pc has it) and use 3rd party software for the tagging/artwork processing (though WMP does get most of the art right) so files are also fine with other software too ....
If you are going to counsel new users about how good and portable WAV is, I think it would be a good idea to name the "3rd party software" that you use for tagging and artwork processing. To my knowledge there is only one package that tags WAV files according to the standard (an obscure and generally ignored standard, but something of a standard nonetheless). (And on a side note, a lot of users are happy to have relatively small footprint programs like EAC or dBpoweramp "cluttering" their machines for ripping because they do secure rips, unlike WMP.)

garym
2012-07-15, 20:21
Did you and your friend compare WAV and FLAC double-blind? And after disabling replaygain? I have and couldn't detect any difference. You can say that my system isn't explicit enough, or my ears are too diminished, or I don't know what to listen for. And I can say that any FLAC transcodes to an identical WAV, and vice versa, which is easily demonstrable.

If you haven't done a double-blind comparison, you owe it to yourself. Software for doing so -- quite easily -- is available in the attics of this forum: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?21545-AB-Testing-Support

foobar2000 has a very easy to use ABX component as well for double-blind testing, volume matched.

Soulkeeper
2012-07-16, 10:59
sometimes when 'beginners' mention WAV they are bombarded by 'experts' or 'senior members' who say noooooooo never dont do it.
Yes, and do you know why that tends to happen? That's because using WAV in a Squeezebox system is generally a stupid idea. The "experts" and "senior members" know that it is a stupid idea, so they try to help the "beginners" to avoid it.


All I wanted to say was yes, it IS possible - give it a go and see for yourself.
Using butter to lubricate engine parts is also possible. But don't give it a go and see for yourself. Because that would be stupid.


If someone wishes to do something a particular way, then why not help them along that path.
Because if that particular way is a particularly stupid way, "helping" them along that path would border on the unethical.


I am simply an advocater of WAV as a file format because I listened and had a preference ......
Your personal preference is not an adequate reason to advocate suboptimal solutions in a public forum, IMO. Subjective whims are generally worthless to everyone except the person whose whims it is. I may start respecting your advice when you can back it up with facts, or at least with something better than "because I feel like it".

iquadius
2012-07-16, 14:23
Yes, and do you know why that tends to happen? That's because using WAV in a Squeezebox system is generally a stupid idea. The "experts" and "senior members" know that it is a stupid idea, so they try to help the "beginners" to avoid it.


Using butter to lubricate engine parts is also possible. But don't give it a go and see for yourself. Because that would be stupid.


Because if that particular way is a particularly stupid way, "helping" them along that path would border on the unethical.


Your personal preference is not an adequate reason to advocate suboptimal solutions in a public forum, IMO. Subjective whims are generally worthless to everyone except the person whose whims it is. I may start respecting your advice when you can back it up with facts, or at least with something better than "because I feel like it".

you know what guys, I shall bow out to your obviously superior mind set and run away and hide with my tail between my legs for daring to have a viable alternative to the norm. You may call me or my idea stupid if you like and I will even doff my cap to the ridiculous butter in the engine analogy because it made me chortle ........ but

my personal preference is indeed an adequate reason to advocate an alternative solution, it has performed flawlessly for me for several years and that is all I wished to convey to the person who asked the question in the first place. This is indeed a public forum and as such requires a live and let live attitude, it merely is a platform that lets us all inform each other of our respective experiences I am therefore disappointed that a few of you felt you had to exercise your egos in a public berating .......... hey maybe if the BBC was aware of your definitive expertise on the matter they may have chosen a format other than WAV also. I guess they made their on minds up too based on experience ..... how dare they!

garym
2012-07-16, 14:29
you know what guys, I shall bow out to your obviously superior mind set and run away and hide with my tail between my legs for daring to have a viable alternative to the norm. You may call me or my idea stupid if you like and I will even doff my cap to the ridiculous butter in the engine analogy because it made me chortle ........ but

my personal preference is indeed an adequate reason to advocate an alternative solution, it has performed flawlessly for me for several years and that is all I wished to convey to the person who asked the question in the first place. This is indeed a public forum and as such requires a live and let live attitude, it merely is a platform that lets us all inform each other of our respective experiences I am therefore disappointed that a few of you felt you had to exercise your egos in a public berating .......... hey maybe if the BBC was aware of your definitive expertise on the matter they may have chosen a format other than WAV also. I guess they made their on minds up too based on experience ..... how dare they!

you are certainly welcome to your opinion, and can state it here as much as you wish. But given that it is a public forum, those with different opinions can state theirs as well. That's how it works. You have to have a bit thicker skin to post on public forums. And we do try (although it has been hard the last couple of years) to backup personal opinions with facts, science, and engineering. But again, you're free to post whatever you'd like. If you think folks here are to stringent about this, try posting your opinions over on hydrogenaudio.org. Then you'll think we're quite nice and accepting over here.

Nothing wrong with using WAV if you choose to. There are reasons not to, and that's what people are posting. But as you said, it's a public forum. But the BBC does not stream anything in WAV. And if they keep their archives in WAV, it is probably because they started doing this long ago, BEFORE lossless codecs existed and the only choice was WAV.

JJZolx
2012-07-16, 14:33
you know what guys, I shall bow out to your obviously superior mind set and run away

Read my posts again. I couldn't care less whether you consider WAV format to sound superior. That's your choice. Great. What I'm saying is that with Squeezebox you can listen to WAV (PCM) without actually having to keep the audio data in WAV files. There is no advantage at all to using WAV _files_.

aubuti
2012-07-16, 15:14
you know what guys, I shall bow out to your obviously superior mind set and run away and hide with my tail between my legs for daring to have a viable alternative to the norm. You may call me or my idea stupid if you like and I will even doff my cap to the ridiculous butter in the engine analogy because it made me chortle ........ but

my personal preference is indeed an adequate reason to advocate an alternative solution, it has performed flawlessly for me for several years and that is all I wished to convey to the person who asked the question in the first place. This is indeed a public forum and as such requires a live and let live attitude, it merely is a platform that lets us all inform each other of our respective experiences I am therefore disappointed that a few of you felt you had to exercise your egos in a public berating .......... hey maybe if the BBC was aware of your definitive expertise on the matter they may have chosen a format other than WAV also. I guess they made their on minds up too based on experience ..... how dare they!
Who is exercising his/her ego in a public berating now? Jeez.

"The person who asked the question in first place" never even asked about WAV vs FLAC. The OP was already using WAV, just like you. When you dredged up this 3-month old thread to convey your preferences and ask "Why does everyone try to put people off using WAV?", we explained why we think FLAC is preferable. Just because people don't agree with you mean they are attacking you.

Meanwhile, you've chosen to ignore some of the substantive questions raised (what tagging software do you use, have you DBT'd FLAC vs WAV with volume matched, etc) that may have led the conversation in a productive direction. Oh well, enjoy your WAVs. Sincerely.

garym
2012-07-16, 15:21
Meanwhile, you've chosen to ignore some of the substantive questions raised (what tagging software do you use, have you DBT'd FLAC vs WAV with volume matched, etc) that may have led the conversation in a productive direction.

not to mention probably the most important issue of ripping with WMP (to any format, Wav or otherwise). It is not known as a secure ripper and doesn't inform the user when there are errors in ripping...it just creates the output files and moves on (at least that used to be the case....google for plenty of info on this). The good news is that, say, 95% of the time the rips are secure no matter what. But the 5% troublesome rips are hidden from the user when using WMP. That's why I mentioned PerfectTunes (by Illustrate/dbpa) as a way of doing after the fact checking of existing rips against the AccurateRip database in order to confirm bit-perfect rips.

toby10
2012-07-17, 03:43
Most people use WAV because they don't know any better so the "experts" chime in to help the beginners to learn of other (and usually better) solutions. Same if the beginner were to post they are using WiFi b and/or WEP security. Will these work to stream music via SqueezeBox? Sure. Is it recommended by those who know better? No, and they post accordingly.

Mnyb
2012-07-25, 09:49
Also if you think WAV sounds better than flac .

the overwhelmingly likely explanation is some kind of bias/placebo effect .

There can be a technical reason like if the flac had repaly gain tags and did not play at the same volume if smart volume was on.

And as JJ stated it is no piont to actuaylly have WAV files as the server can be forced to stream your flac file as WAV ( an in itself daft idea but possible ) .

So why some off us like to react on this is that there are probably 1/100 lurkers vs members ratio that reading our treads .
And WAV vs FLAC is one off thoses audiophile fairy tales that simply is not true and it (and the others ) needs to be met with some healty second opinions as the majority of audiophiledom is some kind of new age cult these days.

For further reading I suggest the TAS computer audio tread in this forum .
TAS had made an effort to muddy the waters completely in a completely ridiculous series about computer audio ( they don't understand the subject at all ) and sadly technically ignorant audiophiles gets there " information " from sources like this ?
Most audio forums are usually a torrent of bs to .
For actual facts about file formats and ripping the hydrogen audio forum is very reliable .

I can get a bit grumpy because the flood of mumbo jumbo that exists on this forum has washed away many talented and good forums members that have contributed a lot over the years , they don't bother to post anymore .

I feel that it is not long before only crackpots comparing different silver mains leads etc are the only ones left .
And that would kill the forum as the more coherent members actually does some beta testing and provide valuable info back to Logitech .

garym
2012-07-25, 18:07
I can get a bit grumpy because the flood of mumbo jumbo that exists on this forum has washed away many talented and good forums members that have contributed a lot over the years , they don't bother to post anymore .

I feel that it is not long before only crackpots comparing different silver mains leads etc are the only ones left .
And that would kill the forum as the more coherent members actually does some beta testing and provide valuable info back to Logitech .

+1