Just so there is some clarity on the subject, here is where I am
coming from completely.
snip
Your post is extremely informative and I'm sure Fedora users appreciate your
work. However, there is exactly one point about which I propose we just
agree to disagree:
Lossless streaming of ogg files
Of
Christian Pernegger
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2005 11:30 AM
To: discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
Subject: Re: [slim] OGG VORBIS Support in Firmware
Just so there is some clarity on the subject, here is where
I am coming
from completely.
snip
Your post is extremely informative
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:29:52 +0100, Christian Pernegger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just so there is some clarity on the subject, here is where I am
coming from completely.
snip
Your post is extremely informative and I'm sure Fedora users appreciate your
work. However, there is exactly one
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
You don't get better audio quality by streaming an ogg file as lossless.
I do not know if all possible ogg decoders necessarily produce identical
output
It's a waste of resources.
It does take more CPU usage - as it has to be decoded (and maybe flac
encoded)
It does take more bandwidth on your
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,
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:54:59 -0800, Michael Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On my 2Hz athlon machine -
That should read 2GHz ;)
--
http://mpeters.us/
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:06:46 +0100, Christian Pernegger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you sure you're cpu bound and not disk bound? The 2.4 disk elevator is a
nightmare and the 2.6 default is not perfect either.
It also happens with my flac files which are on a separate dedicated
hard disk
While this is true, bandwidth / size is not really an issue any more in
any
kind of stationary setup. Harddisk sizes are such that even encoding
your
CDs in a lossless codec is hardly worth the effort anymore - if it
weren't
for tagging support I'm sure some people would just rip to .wav
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:42:40 +0100, Christian Pernegger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
But there's one thing I just noticed: STREAMING. I
Yes - if SlimServer could stream in ogg, there's a good chance it
would make it into distros like Fedora etc. Streaming in flac/PCM is
OK but not a lot of people keep
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:26:49 +0100, Christian Pernegger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OGG is an open format. OGG is the default for the FEDORA distribution.
MP3 was eliminated from FEDORA due to licensing considerations. You can of
course obtain MP3
and install it, but the fact remains that MP3
Wait, you're telling me that the packages a certain commercial Linux
distributor ships have any impact on the market? Sorry, but no.
Linux marketshare is definitely growing - don't ignore it.
Yes. But to push one product with another you need a far bigger chunk of the
market than Linux
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 03:06:10PM +0100, Christian Pernegger wrote:
Wait, you're telling me that the packages a certain commercial Linux
distributor ships have any impact on the market? Sorry, but no.
Linux marketshare is definitely growing - don't ignore it.
Yes. But to push one
Yes - if SlimServer could stream in ogg, there's a good chance it
would make it into distros like Fedora etc.
Again, what has support of a particular format got to do with
putting slimserver in a distribution? Nothing.
Yes - that's SlimServer and not firmware, but if ogg is in firmware, a
side
maybe we can go easy on the Linux evangalism.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mark Komarinski
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:09 AM
To: Slim Devices Discussion
Subject: Re: [slim] OGG VORBIS Support in Firmware
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005
Interesting discussion. BTW, what is this KRUD (wink and nod to our friends
at tummy.com) about FEDORA being a commercial distribution? It is not.
The topic is a request to have OGG in firmware. I remember when MP3 was
dropped from the distro. While I didn't switch my entire library like
Do you also find it silly that hardly any portable players even support OGG?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mike Hunter
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 7:40 AM
To: discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
Subject: Re: [slim] OGG VORBIS
Mark Komarinski wrote:
Much of Slim Devices' success to this point can probably be attributed
to Linux users.
OK now where did you get that statistic from?
--
Daryle A. Tilroe
___
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
Come on, this hardly seems reasonable. It's one thing to request a feature,
it's quite another to demand it. With most products you're lucky to get it
to do what it advertises it can do--yet here you're making demands of
slimdevices to add new features? They've provided hardware decoding of the
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 07:59:43AM -0700, Jason wrote:
Do you also find it silly that hardly any portable players even support OGG?
yes, especially since there's a completely free (BSD style license) decoder
available:
http://www.xiph.org/ogg/vorbis/hardware.html
or directly
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:13:26 +0100, Christian Pernegger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes - if SlimServer could stream in ogg, there's a good chance it
would make it into distros like Fedora etc.
Again, what has support of a particular format got to do with
putting slimserver in a distribution?
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:09:21 -0600, Michael Alletto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If a product states that it supports it it will just confuse people.
Why?
I mean really, OGG? Naming is everything and that name sucks.
I don't think it sucks.
It's no worse than mp3 or aac or flac.
You
try
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:23:32 +0100, Christian Pernegger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This would only be relevant if you were streaming formats other than
mp3 to the sb as mp3, i.e. if you were transcoding to mp3
on the server.
As long as you just pass through mp3 data to the Squeezebox
you
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:31:06 +0100, Christian Pernegger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wait a minute, didn't you just bash mp3 halfway around the list because it
was patent encumbered? Yet you consider AAC? I just don't get you...
I didn't bash mp3.
It is a very good lossy codec.
mp3 (and aac)
I am stating point blank that the patent issues are in fact a problem for
SlimServer ever being
included in Fedora/Red Hat mainline distribution
Then your feature request should not be 'please include native .ogg support
in the sb2', it should be 'please try to get slimserver into an official RH
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Michael Peters
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:40 PM
To: Slim Devices Discussion
Subject: Re: [slim] OGG VORBIS Support in Firmware
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:31:06 +0100, Christian Pernegger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
Jason wrote:
Why on earth would Slim give a damn if Slim server was included in mainline
Linux distributions? Do you really think that the inclusion of Slim Server
software is going to sell extra Squeezeboxes?
While I may not think that native OGG in the firmware is much of
a priority it
Hey, I think that is excellent. I sent in a request to SLIMDEVICES to
have OGG
added to the firmware as I mentioned in a previous post. As a side note,
I'm surprised by the negative attitude of a few people regarding the adding of
this feature. I don't use FLAC currently, don't have any plans,
I do know that transcoding to WAV is not insignificant; and am skeptical of
the overhead
requirements for FLAC. Regardless, the bandwidth requirements for a FLAC
transmission is greater
than that of ogg.
While this is true, bandwidth / size is not really an issue any more in any
kind of
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:33:08 +0100, Christian Pernegger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do know that transcoding to WAV is not insignificant; and am skeptical of
the overhead
requirements for FLAC. Regardless, the bandwidth requirements for a FLAC
transmission is greater
than that of ogg.
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:33:08 +0100, Christian Pernegger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I like .ogg - I just see no point in implementing a
portable format directly on the squeezebox.
I do.
If it used could use ogg for streaming lossy format, there is a better
chance that it
Michael Peters wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 18:33:08 +0100, Christian Pernegger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I like .ogg - I just see no point in implementing a
portable format directly on the squeezebox.
I do.
If it used could use ogg for streaming lossy format, there is a better
accepteable
lossy format (MP3) and support for the emerging defacto standard in lossless
(FLAC).
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Jack Coates
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 8:53 PM
To: Slim Devices Discussion
Subject: Re: [slim] OGG VORBIS
I have opened a feature request (Bug 1061) as follows:
Native support of OGG VORBIS format in firmware. I've read that FLAC is now
supported in Slimserver2. My friends and I have been waiting for native OGG
VORBIS support. It is a drag to have to incur the overhead and increased
bandwidth
to a lossless format).
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Gerald B. Cox
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2005 8:55 AM
To: discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
Subject: [slim] OGG VORBIS Support in Firmware
I have opened a feature request (Bug 1061
Gerald B. Cox wrote:
I have opened a feature request (Bug 1061) as follows:
Native support of OGG VORBIS format in firmware. I've read that FLAC is now
supported in Slimserver2. My friends and I have been waiting for native OGG
Well we had to wait about a year and buy new hardware to get
native
I do not run FLAC so I am not familiar with the processor requirements. I do
know that transcoding to WAV is not insignificant; and am skeptical of the
overhead requirements for FLAC. Regardless, the bandwidth requirements for a
FLAC transmission is greater than that of ogg. I have problems now
37 matches
Mail list logo
