tamanaco;498493 Wrote: > Michael, correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding is that the server is > only used to speed up the analysis process. If the track you're trying > to analyze is already in the server then it sends you an identifier and > the analysis data. If the track is not in the server then using the > MusicIP client your computer analyzes the data (a longer process) and > sends the analysis results to the server so that subsequent user that > need to analyze the same track avoid the long analysis process. In other > words, I thought that the MusicIP client could work independent of the > server. Of course, anylizing a big library, from scratch, in stand-alone > mode would take a very, very long time. >
This is my understanding, too. In ripping a couple of albums today (Christmas day in Oz) I found that the MIP servers are still up and the analysis was very quick. tamanaco;498493 Wrote: > > I've have been backing up the analysis data (default.m3lib) as I > thought this would spare me from ever having to analyze my library from > scratch again. I did not embed the signatures in my FLAC files as > MusicIP has forever been in beta. I have always embedded the analysis, and apart from some problems with a few Apple Lossless tracks and an early beta of MIP some time ago, I have never had a problem with the tags that MIP adds to tracks. My library is almost completely FLAC now. tamanaco;498493 Wrote: > > Are you saying that the MusicIP server massages the analyzed data > further once the local process is done and that without the server any > MusicIP client analysis is useless? One of the SB Server systems I built for a friend runs on a local network that is not connected to the Internet and MIP works perfectly, analyzes new CDs and make mixes without seeing the MIP server. tamanaco;498493 Wrote: > > If this is the case, then the more reason for Logitech to license this > service. I understand that the squeezeteam is going through a lot of > changes, but MusicIP licensing should be on the list of to-dos for next > year. If the owners of the MusicIP servers generate "some" revenue from > the existing server(s), then they'd have an incentive to keep the > service running. I will probably stay away from any new Squeezeproduct > if MusicIP is no longer in the mix. Agree with you here, as I have said in other posts over the years, MIP is the icing on the Squeezebox cake. -- Wirrunna A camel is a racehorse designed by a committee. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wirrunna's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=3225 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=72940 _______________________________________________ plugins mailing list plugins@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/plugins
