I have submitted an enhancement request (BUG 1061). I also agree with the other poster that it is a waste of resources. SLIMDEVICES is hoping that the extra buffer and the bandwidth compression of FLAC will be a reasonable stopgap measure. It definitely will be an improvement over WAV and SB1, but no way is it as good as the actual ogg support in firmware.
Quoting Jason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> So by streaming oggs as lossless, you use more resources and >> do not gain anything. >> If all your network/computer do is squeezebox - BFD. >> But Linux users tend to have a lot more going on, and also >> often tend to use older computers as headless boxes for >> things like slimserver - where the cpu load will make a >> difference (especially if same box is being used for DNS and >> mail and ... as well) >> >> > > You should file this as a bug/enhancement request and then you can petition > all of your friends to vote on it to see if it can be implemented. > > However, as many have told you, the CPU requirements of transcoding are > minimal and transcoding to a lossless format for delivery is an excellent > solution for [b]most[/b] users. > > Those who might panic over a small additional overhead on the cpu when > playing music (remember that a cheap 1ghz Celeron box can easily support 6-8 > players even WITH transcoding) or a small additional load on the network and > who refuse to transcode their music might best look elsewhere for a music > solution. It took Slim a very long time to add native FLAC support to SB > (and actually had to come out with SB2 to do it) so I wouldn't hold my > breath on the addition of another native codec. > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com > http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss > _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
