bpa wrote:
> It's a few years since I update SoftSqueeze but I vaguely remember
> trying to update the libraries including jFlac and it wouldn't build. I
> hadn't the time to investigate so I left libraries alone.
jFlac is basically abandoned, but someone has forked it into a new
project called
philippe_44 wrote:
> Agreed, I should have been more precised - for self-describing formats,
> the size and rate is left to '?' in strms and only for pcm it is
> explicitely set. What I was saying is that for flac, you find the sample
> rate in the STREAMINFO header that is the first thing that i
bitspiel wrote:
> Strm records already includes a sample rate, so I am not technically
> adding one. What my tweak does is replace the server's hard coded, for
> flac tracks, value of '?' with the track's corresponding value as
> documented for strm sample rate.
Agreed, I should have been more p
philippe_44 wrote:
> As a curiosity, why adding sample rate in the strms ? Normally, flac is
> self describing and you find it in the block header (that's what I'm
> doing on my client). I feel the mod should rather be making sure that
> soft squeeze correctly reads the header. They are variants
bitspiel wrote:
> Added some new music to my library and noticed that a couple of the
> purchased flac tracks were sampled at 48K.
>
> My classics have no problem playing the 48K variants, but softsqueeze
> had issues (sort of like pitch shifting down).
>
> So I pulled the code on the two respe
bitspiel wrote:
> I'm puzzled about why you're worried that changing the server to include
> the sample rate for flac streams would affect legacy softsqueeze
> clients. As I read softsqueeze's code, the "sudden" appearance of a non
> '?' sample rate would be simply ignored by legacy softsqueezes
ralphy wrote:
> I always find it interesting at the number of softsqueeze downloads that
> still happen each week, 241 for this past week alone.
>
> The windows version has been downloaded more than 71000 times since I
> released it 4 years ago.
>
> Not bad for a long dead app!
>
> Can the ser
ralphy wrote:
> Perhaps the jflac class could also be updated? Maybe not to the newest,
> but newer.
It's a few years since I update SoftSqueeze but I vaguely remember
trying to update the libraries including jFlac and it wouldn't build. I
hadn't the time to investigate so I left libraries alon
I always find it interesting at the number of softsqueeze downloads that
still happen each week, 241 for this past week alone.
The windows version has been downloaded more than 71000 times since I
released it 4 years ago.
Not bad for a long dead app!
Can the server side flac changes be applied
bpa wrote:
> Softsqueeze (i.e. The Java emulator of IP3K products) is effectively
> dead - there is no point making a change especially as nobody has
> noticed before this although I find it odd as WMA radio stream which are
> typically 48k used to be transcoded into Flac 48K and nobody complain
bitspiel wrote:
> The question I have is there any point in re-contributing these changes
> back to the repositories? Both products are essentially dead.
Softsqueeze (i.e. The Java emulator of IP3K products) is effectively
dead - there is no point making a change.
What version of LMS are you u
Added some new music to my library and noticed that a couple of the
purchased flac tracks were sampled at 48K.
My classics have no problem playing the 48K variants, but softsqueeze
had issues (sort of like pitch shifting down).
So I pulled the code on the two respective products and tweaked the
12 matches
Mail list logo
