Mitch Harding Wrote: > On 12/18/05, samlw <samlw.2094dn (AT) no-mx (DOT) > forums.slimdevices.com> wrote: > > > > > > A WAY TO HAVE A SINGLE CENTRALIZED LIBRARY OF MY DIGITAL MUSIC IN A > > SINGLE HIGH-QUALITY COMPRESSED (BOTH ON DISK AND OVER-THE-WIRE) > FORMAT > > (PREFERABLY LOSSSLESS, DEFINITELY NOT MP3), THAT LIVES ON A > LOW-POWER > > LINUX BOX, AND THAT CAN BE ACCESSED AND PLAYED BY BOTH ITUNES > CLIENTS > > AND SQUEEZEBOX CLIENTS WITHOUT NEED FOR INTERMEDIATE SERVER-SIDE > > TRANSCODING. > > > > I really don't see what is so incredibly controversial or > > "wrong-headed" about this request. > > > The only part I find strange is that you are willing to accept a lossy > format (such as AAC, the one you are currently using) but unwilling to > accept MP3 (the de facto standard). > I've read where you say that you prefer AAC over MP3 and that it is > your > belief that for a given bitrate, AAC offers beter audio quality than > MP3. > I've never done any side-by-side comparisons, so I don't know if this > is > true or not. But even if we grant that it is, then just encode your > mp3s at > a higher bit rate than you'd ordinarily use with your AAC files. > Wouldn't > that solve your problem? The extra disk space would not be > significant. > Yes, well as I mentioned earlier, I am resigned to using MP3, which I will encode at the highest bitrate available. At this bit rate, AAC would still be preferable. > > I agree with Sean -- most people who are going to be keeping their > music > libraries in AAC will probably be using a Mac server, in which case > this is > not an issue. Your case is not that common, using a non-Mac server to > serve > AAC -- and moreover using a server with such low horsepower that you > don't > consider transcoding an option. > True. But I only asked for AAC because I was looking for a better alternative to MP3. If you go back to the start of the thread, you will see that I was under the incorrect impression that Apple Lossless and AAC were essentially the same codec. What I really wanted was Apple Lossless, so the title of this thread is a bit unfortunate (my fault). Still, if Apple Lossless is not possible, AAC would be my second choice. > > It's my opinion that there are higher priority improvements that Slim > Devices could implement. This particular improvement would not be > trivial > to implement, according to SD, and it would benefit a very small > minority of > users. Surely you can acknowledge the wisdom in focusing on > improvements > that will benefit the most users? > Absoultely. I'm not trying to dictate Slim's priorities and I never said that this should be moved to the top of Slim's priority list. I'm just a user with a request, and this forum seems like the place to make it. That said, Squeezebox's main competing product (there I go pushing that button again) does support AAC in firmware. I assume it does so because there is market demand for such a feature. So, I wouldn't rush to judgment that my situation is so terribly uncommon. As I said before, I think that the Squeezebox is a great product - superior in most respects to its competitors (which is why I chose it). I also happen to think that in this one respect, it is not superior. And so in the interest of keeping Squeezebox at the head of the pack, I humbly suggest that Slim look into adding Apple Lossles or at least AAC to the Squeezebox's native format repertoire. > > All of this having been said, I think some people were unduly harsh in > their replies to you. Agreed. And I think we've all beat this horse just about to death. So, 'nuff said.
-- samlw ------------------------------------------------------------------------ samlw's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2818 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=19155 _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
