m1abrams;556675 Wrote:
> Bragging about having ~5 FLAC songs play well on the Touch is not really
> a great endorsement ;). Did you mean to say 150GB?
Correct, that is 150 GB
--
nicolas75
nicolas75's Profile: http://foru
nicolas75;556674 Wrote:
> May be because that satisfied people are less prone to spend time about
> telling it.
> I have to say I use TinySC with a usb-powered, NTFS formated, Western
> Digital 500 GB 2.5" DD
>
> I have about 150 GB of flac files on it (and a lot of others files not
> related to
nicolas75;556674 Wrote:
>
> I have about 150 MB of flac files on it (and a lot of others files not
> related to audio in different directories, which is bad practice)
>
>
Bragging about having ~5 FLAC songs play well on the Touch is not
really a great endorsement ;). Did you mean to say 150G
mikkeldaase;556669 Wrote:
> The responses on the board is discouraging for potential touch buyers
May be because that satisfied people are less prone to spend time about
telling it.
I have to say I use TinySC with a usb-powered, NTFS formated, Western
Digital 500 GB 2.5" DD
I have about 150 MB
The responses on the board is discouraging for potential touch buyers,
and it is reason good enough to stay away from it. I think it is quite
obvious that the touch, for quite a few, doesnt deliver what is
promised regarding it's capabilities to play directly from usb. The
religious loyalty some d
floater;556547 Wrote:
> iPod=Works as advertised
> Touch=Doesn't work as advertised. Maybe it will eventually, but it
> certainly doesn't with a USB drive right now.
>
> Nothing anyone is saying changes that. So just give up on the waffle
> OK. If you all REALLY want to compare functionality, I
erland;552712 Wrote:
> Let's face it, if all you want is a simple single room device that's
> fast and you are satisfied with decent audio quality from high bit rate
> lossy compressed music files, you should really get an iPod. For this
> kind of usage an iPod with a docking station beats the Sq
Let's face it, if all you want is a simple single room device that's
fast and you are satisfied with decent audio quality from high bit rate
lossy compressed music files, you should really get an iPod. For this
kind of usage an iPod with a docking station beats the Squeezebox
Touch.
For simple us
floater;552676 Wrote:
> The Touch (with all its extra, SECONDARY features) still can't handle a
> large library with an attached USB drive that wouldn't trouble an iPod,
> which is kind of sad and the ONLY point I've been making. So a touch was
> never designed designed to "excel" at reliably pla
floater;552676 Wrote:
> The Touch (with all its extra, SECONDARY features) still can't handle a
> large library with an attached USB drive that wouldn't trouble an iPod,
> which is kind of sad and the ONLY point I've been making. So a touch was
> never designed designed to "excel" at reliably pla
iPhone;552665 Wrote:
> I think Phil was thinking and talking about the end result of what the
> device are best at between Touch and iPhone/iPod. iPhone/iPod (modern
> ones) don't play FLAC or connect to just any stereo with high fidelity
> output and the Touch is not a portable MP3 player no mat
floater;551206 Wrote:
> On mine 18000, mostly flacs is hopeless.
This has got to come down to more then just library size then, because
I have 24158 FLAC and 3 MP3 files on my 640GB Toshiba with 5.8 GB of
free space. The Touch does everything I ask it to do.
So I think it comes down to how much
iPhone;552665 Wrote:
> I think Phil was thinking and talking about the end result of what the
> device are best at between Touch and iPhone/iPod. iPhone/iPod (modern
> ones) don't play FLAC or connect to just any stereo with high fidelity
> output and the Touch is not a portable MP3 player no mat
floater;551397 Wrote:
> Missing the point completely. Is it not the opposite scenario that is of
> relevance?
>
> Troll. First rule of holes: when in one stop digging.
>
> I'll not waste any more effort on you. Bye.
I think Phil was thinking and talking about the end result of what the
device
Phil,
thank you for your thoughtful post. I think its length demonstrates my
point.
Phil Leigh;552599 Wrote:
> (let's ignore Internet Radio for a moment)
> .
The Internet radio was what drew me to squeezebox. I think that means
the "indexing" of streams on Mysqueezebox.com is another key comp
The core components of a "Network Music Player" solution are:
1)a hard disk/other physical medium with music files on it (let's
ignore Internet Radio for a moment)
2)a piece of software that can interrogate the music files and compile
a searchable/browsable/playable music "database"
3)a UI/Cont
mfw;552518 Wrote:
> ...
> I love my new Touch. But what is it?
A Networked Music Player with exceptional qualities and features.
--
toby10
toby10's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12553
Aside from demonstrating some intemperate attitudes by some posters, I
think this thread demonstrates we don't really have a good vocabulary
for describing squeezebox. Servers and players (and controllers?) are
all components we can weave into systems. How does one describe
squeezebox in a simple
floater;552445 Wrote:
> Playing music from a hard drive perhaps? Jesus H. Christ, I don't
> usually resort to abuse on forums, but you are a f uckwit pedant. I
> suppose next you'll be saying a dynamic speaker and an electrostatic
> speaker don't do the same thing. This really is goodbye.
>
> P
Phil Leigh;552159 Wrote:
> And for some reason you still refuse to accept that what the SBS/tinySC
> is doing is NOTHING like what an iPod/Archos/etc is doing.
Playing music from a hard drive perhaps? Jesus H. Christ, I don't
usually resort to abuse on forums, but you are a f uckwit pedant. I
floater;552157 Wrote:
> If you'd been paying attention you'd know I don't own an iPod - was just
> comparing performance at that trivial task of playing music without
> crashing ;-). I can't believe people are arguing over this, but that's
> an internet forum I suppose.
And for some reason you s
ntom;552103 Wrote:
>
>
> The poster who complains the SBTouch doesn't compare to an ipod
> well just plug some cheap active speakers into your ipod & be done?
If you'd been paying attention you'd know I don't own an iPod - was
just comparing performance at that trivial task of playing musi
This really is an apples / oranges comparison, but one which logitech
have brought upon the product.
I use an ipod & hate itunes. It's a portable device.
My Squeexbox Players are intended for quality, no high quality home
listening as priority one, then remaining players for convenience
sharing
Its a bug that I'm sure will be fixed. They just have to delay the
playing until the playlist it built.
--
Tony T
Tony
SBTouch ♪ SBRadio ♬
Tony T's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34544
View t
Tony T;551945 Wrote:
> No, not for a track, for an album.
Yes, that what I meant : to play an album, I always selected the first
track.
Now, I have tried your method, by selecting '+' and then 'Play' : you
were right, now the rebuffering problem is gone. Great !!!
But :
1) I find this method l
rotho;551914 Wrote:
> You're right : I never use '+' to play a track. I will try your method
> and report back...
No, not for a track, for an album.
--
Tony T
Tony
SBTouch ♪ SBRadio ♬
Tony T's Profile: http://forums.
Tony T;551891 Wrote:
> How are you selecting 'Play" for an Album? Are you clicking on a Track
> to start Play, or are you selecting More '+' and then Play (I get a 1st
> track rebuffering on the former, but not the latter).
You're right : I never use '+' to play a track. I will try your method
garym;551897 Wrote:
> some do, some don't. depends on the model.
Fair enough. The quote is still not a true statement.
--
pounce
pounce's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=12645
View this thread:
pounce;551894 Wrote:
> Not that it matters much, but this is not a true statement. iPods have a
> speaker and can play music without headphones.
some do, some don't. depends on the model.
--
garym
garym's Profile: http:/
floater;551346 Wrote:
>
> iPod has no audible output of its own, but you can connect headphones.
>
Not that it matters much, but this is not a true statement. iPods have
a speaker and can play music without headphones.
--
pounce
--
rotho;551884 Wrote:
>
> - Little re-buffering problem at the beginning of first tracks of
> 16/44.1 albums
>
How are you selecting 'Play" for an Album? Are you clicking on a Track
to start Play, or are you selecting More '+' and then Play (I get a 1st
track rebuffering on the former, but not
rotho;551884 Wrote:
> It would be very interesting to investigate the different parameters
> which influence the CPU usage on the Touch with Tiny SC (when handling
> a "large" collection of files), in order to understand why certain
> users do not have any problem and others have constant re-buff
Phil Leigh;551638 Wrote:
>
> The Touch handles my 35,000 FLAC files (including 2000 hi-rez files)
> fine from a standalone (self-powered) USB drive (I've tried 3 so far),
> so there is no inherent generic problem.
It would be very interesting to investigate the different parameters
which influe
floater;551671 Wrote:
> Please note that a couple of folks have referred to mp3 players that do
> indeed scan and maintain their own database, without the horrible
> kludge of iTunes for the iPod. Mp3 players dating back many years too,
> not the latest models!
>
> My Archos AV400 scans files at
floater;551671 Wrote:
> Please note that a couple of folks have referred to mp3 players that do
> indeed scan and maintain their own database, without the horrible
> kludge of iTunes for the iPod. Mp3 players dating back many years too,
> not the latest models!
>
> My Archos AV400 scans files at
dsdreamer;551653 Wrote:
>
>
> But an iPOD needs a serious computer running iTunes to perform the
> scanning part of work flow.
>
>
Please note that a couple of folks have referred to mp3 players that do
indeed scan and maintain their own database, without the horrible kludge
of iTunes for t
I am a very happy owner of a SB Touch, especially its sound quality,
appearance and general usability. But I've never tested the TinySC part
of its functionality; having an existing server running on a Buffalo
Linkstation made that moot for me.
I understand that prospective purchasers would like
Phil Leigh;551638 Wrote:
> It wasn't a quote (otherwise I'd have used the quote function of the
> forum).
>
> It was a statement by me - the quotation marks are mine.
>
> The point I was making in response is that the Touch is NOT a portable
> player, nor is it marketed as one, so comparing it
jaynlisa;551617 Wrote:
> Phil,
>
> He didn't say it was a "high-spec portable mp3 player", and you totally
> misquoted him. He said it didn't function "as well as" a portable mp3
> player, and in terms of handling large amounts of files, I'd have to
> agree!
It wasn't a quote (otherwise I'd h
Polar;551626 Wrote:
> I intend to buy a Touch and this only because of its USB functionality
> (I already own a Duet), so I do not have to use a server anymore (that
> never stops running) or do SSODS upgrades that become more complicated
> every time (at least for me, my knowledge of Linux is ze
mlsstl;551514 Wrote:
> I think it is a very legitmate question for a buyer to have some idea if
> this device is going to work for him. There are a number of people who,
> for various reasons, would love to have a Touch directly play their
> music from a USB drive without the need for an external
erland;551568 Wrote:
> IMHO, most people will be better of with a separate server on a
> computer, Sheevaplug, Vortexbox appliance or similar. For some people
> the built-in server in the Touch will work, but it might also not work
> depending on your size of library, file format, network, custom
iwannatouch;551584 Wrote:
> You may be right, but that's not how Logitech is marketing the Touch to
> consumers. Instructions on the use of a connected USB drive to play
> music and display photos are described on 11 of the feature guide's 30
> pages. That makes it sound like a prominent, rather
erland;551568 Wrote:
> IMHO, most people will be better of with a separate server on a
> computer, Sheevaplug, Vortexbox appliance or similar. For some people
> the built-in server in the Touch will work, but it might also not work
> depending on your size of library, file format, network, custom
Phil Leigh;551339 Wrote:
> 1) The Touch is not a "high-spec portable mp3 player" - it is a (very)
> high quality Network Music Player. It has no audible output of its own
> and does not run on batteries.
>
> 2) The Touch and an ithing have nothing in common.
Phil,
He didn't say it was a "high-
JohnSwenson;551564 Wrote:
> The server (squeezeboxServer) is written in perl, the player part
> (SqueezePlay) uses lua as its user interface language.
>
> In both cases major parts are written in C linked into the particular
> interpreter.
>
> In the player the audio samples exist entirely in
erland;551568 Wrote:
> Consider it to be a positive side effect if the built-in server works in
> your environment for your main library.
You may be right, but that's not how Logitech is marketing the Touch to
consumers. Instructions on the use of a connected USB drive to play
music and display
mlsstl;551514 Wrote:
> I think it is a very legitmate question for a buyer to have some idea if
> this device is going to work for him. There are a number of people who,
> for various reasons, would love to have a Touch directly play their
> music from a USB drive without the need for an external
Tony T;551378 Wrote:
> Or at the very least move to python scripts.
> (Is all of SBS and TinySC really in Perl?)
The server (squeezeboxServer) is written in perl, the player part
(SqueezePlay) uses lua as its user interface language.
In both cases major parts are written in C linked into the p
m1abrams;551222 Wrote:
> ugh one thread please. The tipping point is when it starts failing for
> you. Why do you need a generic range number?
I think it is a very legitmate question for a buyer to have some idea
if this device is going to work for him. There are a number of people
who, for va
floater;551397 Wrote:
> Missing the point completely. Is it not the opposite scenario that is of
> relevance?
>
> Troll. First rule of holes: when in one stop digging.
>
> I'll not waste any more effort on you. Bye.
0/10 - there's only 1 Troll here...
--
Phil Leigh
You want to see the sig
m1abrams;551399 Wrote:
> Big difference between the iPod and the Touch.
>
> The iPod does not scan and generate the database! iTunes does on your
> PC.
My many years old Archos mp3 player does just that: scans the database
on disconnection from the PC. The only way I have ever added tracks to
Big difference between the iPod and the Touch.
The iPod does not scan and generate the database! iTunes does on your
PC.
--
m1abrams
m1abrams's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=850
View this threa
Phil Leigh;551382 Wrote:
> Yeah, right. I really feel like walking down the street with a Touch +
> disk drive + large battery pack in my pocket so I can plug some
> headphones in...
>
>
Missing the point completely. Is it not the opposite scenario that is
of relevance?
Troll. First rule of h
floater;551346 Wrote:
> Hahahahahaah
>
> iPod plays music, indexed by tags.
>
> Touch plays music indexed by tags.
>
> iPod plays said music from directly connected hard drive.
>
> Touch plays said music from directly connected hard drive.
>
> iPod has no audible output of its own, but you c
andynormancx;551349 Wrote:
> Now that isn't really true is it ?
>
> They both run the same family of processors and they both have to run
> software that categorizes music by artist, album, genre etc
>
>
You know what I meant...
Go to any retail web site - find iThings under "Portable Music
floater;551352 Wrote:
> Maybe Logitech should hire a C++ programmer...
Or at the very least move to python scripts.
(Is all of SBS and TinySC really in Perl?)
--
Tony T
Tony
SBTouch ♪ SBRadio ♬
Tony T's Profile: http
andynormancx;551349 Wrote:
>
> The iPod (Classic) has a very much slower CPU than the Touch, but one
> can only assume its software is somewhat more efficient than than a
> bunch of Perl scripts ;)
>
Maybe Logitech should hire a C++ programmer...
--
floater
-
Phil Leigh;551339 Wrote:
>
> 2) The Touch and an ithing have nothing in common.
Now that isn't really true is it ?
They both run the same family of processors and they both have to run
software that categorizes music by artist, album, genre etc
The iPod (Classic) has a very much slower CPU tha
Phil Leigh;551339 Wrote:
> 1) The Touch is not a "high-spec portable mp3 player" - it is a (very)
> high quality Network Music Player. It has no audible output of its own
> and does not run on batteries.
>
> 2) The Touch and an ithing have nothing in common.
Hahahahahaah
iPod plays music, inde
floater;551332 Wrote:
> So we have what is in essence a high spec. mp3 player that can't
> function as well as a portable mp3 player... It would seem SBS is not
> very efficient & the legacy of having it run on a PC has caught out
> Logitech with their hardware specification for the Touch.
>
>
So we have what is in essence a high spec. mp3 player that can't
function as well as a portable mp3 player... It would seem SBS is not
very efficient & the legacy of having it run on a PC has caught out
Logitech with their hardware specification for the Touch.
If an iPod behaved like this would
Tony T;551217 Wrote:
> ok, so what if someone had 5,000 flac's? What is the 'tipping point'?
There is no one tipping point. Its a server shoe-horned into a player,
that even at its best is near maxing out the resources of the hardware.
It doesn't take much to push it over the edge.
The result
Tony T;551217 Wrote:
> ok, so what if someone had 5,000 flac's? What is the 'tipping point'?
ugh one thread please. The tipping point is when it starts failing for
you. Why do you need a generic range number?
--
m1abrams
-
m1abrams;551212 Wrote:
> I would recommend that you look into setting up SBS. I would consider
> 8,000 FLAC to be a large collection and worthy of a dedicate media
> server.
ok, so what if someone had 5,000 flac's? What is the 'tipping point'?
--
Tony T
Tony
SBTouch ♪ SBRadio ♬
Tony T;551209 Wrote:
> I'm at 8,000 FLAC's with the only minor annoyance so far is
> 're-buffering' when I select a random song mix. I'm hoping that I
> don't run into problems as I add CD's (...but I only buy about 2-4 a
> month, so it will build slowly from my 8k)
>
> I do expect (hope) that
floater;551206 Wrote:
> On mine 18000, mostly flacs is hopeless.
I'm at 8,000 FLAC's with the only minor annoyance so far is
're-buffering' when I select a random song mix. I'm hoping that I
don't run into problems as I add CD's (...but I only buy about 2-4 a
month, so it will build slowly from
Tony T;551170 Wrote:
> How large a music collection is "too large" for TinySC?
On mine 18000, mostly flacs is hopeless.
--
floater
floater's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=38048
View this thread
not sure. My brother uses tiny SbS and has about 54,000 mp3/aac files on
the external powered USB drive. All have embedded album art.
--
garym
garym's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=17325
View thi
How large a music collection is "too large" for TinySC?
--
Tony T
Tony
SBTouch ♪ SBRadio ♬
Tony T's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=34544
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthr
70 matches
Mail list logo
