[slim] SB2 wireless getting bizarre IP address
Dear list, I've just received my new SqueezeBox 2 (for the living room, to complement the SBG in my bedroom), and I'm having a bizarre problem with wireless networking. I've sent a support request to Slim Devices, but I figured I'd ask here in case anyone else has seen the same thing. Here's the problem: when I try to connect to my Netgear WGR614 wireless router, the SB2 connects fine, tries to get an IP address through DHCP, and ends up with an address in the range 169.254.x.y, where x and y change each time. The router's configured to use 192.168.3.x. Needless to say, this issue makes it hard to use wireless, which is a problem as I don't have Cat5 running to the living room. Here's what I've checked so far: Generic problem with the router: not likely - my SBG talks to it just fine, as do two laptops, one desktop, and a PDA. Also, if I try to connect to my neighbor's unprotected Linksys (ssh! you didn't hear that), I get the same problem. Signal strength: 95-100% (I've tested it both in another room and 2 feet from the router). Encryption/Authentication/MAC address filtering: all turned off at the router for testing. Misconfigured MAC on the SB2: the config screen matches the sticker on the bottom. Generic networking problem with SB2: it works fine if I connect wired to the router. Interference from other wireless networks: there are two others in the area; the SB2 intermittently sees both, but they're relatively low signal strength and on different channels. Also, no other wireless devices have problems. By testing it with two different routers from different manufacturers I think I've eliminated the router as the problem. So I have to assume now that there's something wrong with my SB2. Is there something else I can try configuration-wise, or does my SB2 have a bad wireless card? -A.J. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] SB2 wireless getting bizarre IP address
I knew I left something out - when I configure it with a static IP I still can't connect, and can't ping that IP even from other machines behind the router. And I doubt it's a problem with the DHCP server, since both routers have DHCP servers that function normally for every other device that tries to connect. So I'm pretty sure it's an actual communication problem On 9/27/05, Philip Bouscarle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How about giving it a fixed IP address in the range you want? From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of A.J. AranyosiSent: 27 September 2005 16:37To: Slim Devices DiscussionSubject: [slim] SB2 wireless getting bizarre IP address Dear list,I've just received my new SqueezeBox 2 (for the living room, to complement the SBG in my bedroom), and I'm having a bizarre problem with wireless networking. I've sent a support request to Slim Devices, but I figured I'd ask here in case anyone else has seen the same thing. Here's the problem: when I try to connect to my Netgear WGR614 wireless router, the SB2 connects fine, tries to get an IP address through DHCP, and ends up with an address in the range 169.254.x.y, where x and y change each time. The router's configured to use 192.168.3.x. Needless to say, this issue makes it hard to use wireless, which is a problem as I don't have Cat5 running to the living room. Here's what I've checked so far:Generic problem with the router: not likely - my SBG talks to it just fine, as do two laptops, one desktop, and a PDA. Also, if I try to connect to my neighbor's unprotected Linksys (ssh! you didn't hear that), I get the same problem. Signal strength: 95-100% (I've tested it both in another room and 2 feet from the router).Encryption/Authentication/MAC address filtering: all turned off at the router for testing.Misconfigured MAC on the SB2: the config screen matches the sticker on the bottom.Generic networking problem with SB2: it works fine if I connect wired to the router.Interference from other wireless networks: there are two others in the area; the SB2 intermittently sees both, but they're relatively low signal strength and on different channels. Also, no other wireless devices have problems.By testing it with two different routers from different manufacturers I think I've eliminated the router as the problem. So I have to assume now that there's something wrong with my SB2. Is there something else I can try configuration-wise, or does my SB2 have a bad wireless card?-A.J. ___Discuss mailing listDiscuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Re: SB2 wireless getting bizarre IP address
I'll take you up on that bet - I could use the money! The SSID is chosen from a list of available networks, and definitely matches (it also matched when I connected to the other router). The security method (none - I normally use MAC address filtering, and have added the SB2's MAC, but I've disabled the filtering at the router for this test; the neighbors thankfully use no security whatsoever) is also chosen from a list. So if it's misconfigured on the SB2, then it's because of something wrong internally. I'll try Radish's suggestion of doing a hard reset when I get home tonight. On 9/27/05, MrC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I'm betting your SSID and/or security method is misconfigured on your SB2, not matching your router.--MrC___Discuss mailing listDiscuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Re: SB2 wireless getting bizarre IP address
I agree completely! However, I can't find anything wrong with any of those settings. At this point, I'm operating on the assumption that either the SB2 or my router has gotten itself into an unstable state and needs a hard reset. If resetting both of them to the factory state doesn't fix the problem, then I'll look into other possibilities.On 9/27/05, MrC [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, if you are selecting an SSID from a list, then your wireless *is*communicating with the router(s) ! There are only four things I can think of that will prevent thecompletion of the connection: 1) mac address issues, 2) filtering, 3)firewall, 4) security/authentication mechanisms.I presume you don't have the ethernet cable connected at the same time. --MrC___Discuss mailing listDiscuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
Re: [slim] Re: Spectrum Analyzer reversed?
As long as you're deviating from a Fourier representation of the signal, may I suggest one that's based on perceptual studies? The Bark scale (http://www-ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/bbt/Bark_Frequency_Scale.html) is based on the idea of critical bands --- namely, people represent the ear as a series of band-pass filters, and the critical band at a given frequency is defined as the width of a rectangular filter that passes the same power as the ear's bandpass filter at that frequency. The key feature here is that the width of this filter varies with frequency. So an 8-band Bark-scale based representation would have bands corresponding to: Band 1: 0 - 300 Hz Band 2: 300 - 630 Hz Band 3: 630 - 1080 Hz Band 4: 1080 - 1720 Hz Band 5: 1720 - 2700 Hz Band 6: 2700 - 4400 Hz Band 7: 4400 - 7700 Hz Band 8: 7700 Hz What you'll notice here is that the bands are smaller at lower frequencies - i.e., it's easier for us to tell the difference between 300 and 400 Hz than the difference between 8300 and 8400 Hz. After taking a quick peek at the code, though, I'm guessing that the FFT for the spectrum analyzer is computed within the Squeezebox 2 itself, so this particular change would have to be implemented in firmware (and maybe not even then, if the FFT is done in hardware). On 7/9/05, Milhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've generated some test tones (100-3000 in 100Hz increments, then 1000Hz incrememnts up to 14Khz) and it seems that the 8-bar Spectrum Analyzer is not weighting the lower frequencies as strongly as it possibly should. I tested using MP3 format as for some reason my SBG2 wouldn't play the WAV formats. It would appear that the following frequencies correspond to each bar: Code: Bar 1 - 0Hz - 1000Hz Bar 1 2 - 1100Hz - 1900Hz Bar 2 - 2000Hz - 2500Hz Bar 2 3 - 2600Hz - 3000Hz Bar 3 - 4000Hz Bar 4 - 5000Hz Bar 4 5 - 6000Hz Bar 5 6 - 7000Hz Bar 6 - 8000Hz Bar 7 - 9000Hz Bar 7 8 - 10,000Hz Bar 8 - 11,000Hz Bar 7 8 - 12,000Hz Bar 7 - 13,000Hz Bar 6 7 - 14,000Hz Bar 8 14,000 13,000 12,000 11,000 40005000 60007000 80009000 10,000 2600-3000 2000-2500 1100-1900 0 - 1000 Bar 1 | Bar 2 | Bar 3 | Bar 4 | Bar 5 | Bar 6 | Bar 7 | Bar 8 | For some reason frequencies above 11K are begin to appear in lower bars of the analyzer. It would better, I think, if the first 4 bars were used to represent frquencies between 0-3500Hz, with the remaining 4 bars used for frequencies above 3000Hz. This may give a better representation that at present. eg. Code: 11,000+ 10,000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3100-3500 2600-3000 2100-2500 1600-2000 1100-1500 600-1000 0 - 500 Bar 1 | Bar 2 | Bar 3 | Bar 4 | Bar 5 | Bar 6 | Bar 7 | Bar 8 | I'll take a look and see if I can tweak anything in squeezebox2.pm, but as I know next to nothing about Perl I'm not expecting much success! :) -- Milhouse ___ 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
Re: [slim] Re: Tag organization question
In response to a comment I added to a bug report, Ben Sandee told me, although I haven't tried this yet, that SlimServer supports certain ID3v2 tags that let you specify sorting criteria that are separate from the artist/album name. These tags are TSOP and TSOA for performer and album sort order, respectively. For example, you can have the artist tag set to David Bowie and the TSOP tag set to Bowie, David. Then Bowie will fall between The Beatles and The Buzzcocks alphabetically, but still be listed as David Bowie. On 7/6/05, Niek Jongerius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't use lastname, firstname, as I don't think there's much to be gained by doing so. Ironically (I suppose) I do use lastname, firstname in organizing my CDs on the shelf, but I've never found the two approaches to conflict in my mind. With the CDs on my shelves I treat stage names used by individuals exactly as if they were band names. Same here, CDs on the shelves by last name, the tags on the files by first name. Avoids having to wrap your head around stuff like Sam the Sham and the Pharaos. And besides, it kinda makes me feel good, being on a first name basis with all those famous people in my library. :-) Niek. ___ 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
