garym wrote: > But this is not how the feeding of a SB player from a server actually > works. The suggestion that reducing the workload of a PC running as LMS > server can affect the SB player is equivalent to saying the following: > If I can increase the efficiency of a fueling station on the freeway, my > automobile will work better when I'm 50 miles down the road. Of course > this makes no sense. Once I've filled up my fuel tank at the station, > the station has no affect on my automobile when I'm down the road. > > As noted, the only issue one could have between a server and the SB > player is if the server can't fill the buffer with new 0s/1s faster than > the SB is emptying this buffer (i.e., playing the music). > > (This said, if one is using the SOUNDCARD in a PC to play music, then it > is at least theoretically possible that doing things to that PC can > affect the playback of the music. But of course the entire engineering > and design of the Squeezebox player is to remove the factor of the PC > from the playback on the player.)
Thanks Gary , you explains things better . Deaf Cat can actually try this , play a song for a couple of minute now pull out the Ethernet cable . Now listen to the buffer without any computer influence . Yes LMS server basically transfer the file to the player for playback ( Oversimplified ). As the PC does do not do the playback it can't influence the sound ,when using a squeezebox . In this case there simply is no plausible mechanism where the server can influence the sound . If you used an onboard soundcard I can think of several of them ,but they to can be mitigated by far simpler (and free) means than this software . A file transferred over the whole Internet is also delivered perfectly . These communication protocols actually works . One of the things computers do really well is copy stuff they do perfect copies all day . To imply that's the data in the Squuezebox buffer would somehow been changed basically implies that the computer has lost this basic ability . Such a computer is milliseconds from crashing completely . And the data do arrive in squirts and lumps all the time not in real time (usually at far greater speed than needed if your network is ok ) TCP/IP works that way it s called ip packets and the error correction for those are extremely good . Remember the Internet works ! You can download a complete OS over the net without a single error . This is asynchrounus to . Asynchronous actually means ( among many things ) that the data is not timed in any way meaningfull to the data . Think of it this way . If you filled the squeezebox buffer with 30 seconds of the same file/song but by two different means ? Could you foresically tell the difference if you by some magic "freezed" the squeezebox copied the buffers and compared them ? I think NSA would fail on this task . The data is just there it has no history built in . Also in genral this software has all the tell tales of a scam beware . It is said that progressive people should keep an open mind , this is all and well if you also apply common sense and some sound scepticism . For every correct idea there is also endless incorrect ideas that compte with it ! Thats why the idea that you should weigh " both sides " equally is flawed the good one is simply swamped by the crackpots , most ideas humanity ever had where/is wrong . Just be a bit critical and demand evidence . In the case of this software it would be very easy to test so no debate is needed . 1. Do traditional audio measurement . 2. Do an audio diffmaker test . If 1 or 2 sugest any difference and it's big enough to sugest it would possible to hear, do a listening test ( abx of course ) to try to quantify if it's audiable and what the difference is . If this is performed it does not matter what anyone on a forum thinks either it works or it don't . No subjective anecdote from either acolytes or sceptical people would have the power to change facts . For some reason none of the aviable "magic audiophile software" vendors will do this , they fill there websites with anecdotes instead . Despite that it is possible to prove their products they somehow always avoid this very powerfull product verification ? I would,suggests that Archimago has the equipment and the vervital to test this , but I doubt he will . He has done similar products, so one more ?. And by the reason I jut gave that there are endless flawed ideas for every correct one it would be endless work to follow every weird audio idea out there . -------------------------------------------------------------------- Main hifi: Touch + CIA PS +MeridianG68J MeridianHD621 MeridianG98DH 2 x MeridianDSP5200 MeridianDSP5200HC 2 xMeridianDSP3100 +Rel Stadium 3 sub. Bedroom/Office: Boom Kitchen: Touch + powered Fostex PM0.4 Misc use: Radio (with battery) iPad1 with iPengHD & SqueezePad (in storage SB3, reciever ,controller ) server HP proliant micro server N36L with ClearOS Linux http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mnyb's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=4143 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=100440 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list audiophiles@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
