[linux-audio-user] (no subject)

[Dylan]

On Saturday 14 Aug 2004 00:02 am, Erik Steffl wrote:
> Dylan wrote:
> > On Friday 13 Aug 2004 20:02 pm, Erik Steffl wrote:
> >>Dylan wrote:
> >>>On Thursday 12 Aug 2004 20:43 pm, Erik Steffl wrote:
> >>>>Dylan wrote:
> >>>>>Hi List,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>This may be somewhat off topic, but I figure some of you may
> >>>>> well know the answer...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I'm trying to set up an audio server to connect to my home
> >>>>> stereo, and have been looking for an app with the following
> >>>>> features: web based interface for playlisting, and playback
> >>>>> through local sound card.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I've found plenty of options which provide streaming, but none
> >>>>>which play through the server's own sound system.
> >>>>
> >>>>  have client on the same machine.
> >>>
> >>>I don't want to stream the audio anywhere at all. Why on earth
> >>>should I have to install, configure and maintain a streaming
> >>> server and client when I can simply have the machine play the
> >>> file directly - less resources used, less to go wrong, less to
> >>> worry about.
> >>
> >>   you have to install, configure and maintain jukebox a player
> >>anyway,
> >
> > To my mind, the application which indexes and organises the media
> > files need have nothing to do with the playing of said files,
> > except that it needs to be able to call a player app.
> >
> >>whether they communicate via network (streaming) or not is
> >>not really a big issue... or a big difference in resources used.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but I disagree.
>
>    no need to be sorry, did you measure it?

No, but it's an accademic point anyway - the machine would be more than 
capable of doing it.

>
> >>Most
> >>jukeboxes use external players anyway.
> >
> > Good, I hope they are able to use a player of my choice.
> >
> >>Or do you want jukebox with
> >>built-in player?
> >
> > Definitely not.
> >
> >>Freeamp could possibly be used as jukebox (I found
> >>it somewhat unstable but haven't used it for quite some time). Or
> >>xmms with some plugin (there are some plugins that offer better
> >>control than default playlist). And instead of web interface use X
> >>across network (or vnc if you want to be able to
> >> disconnect/reconnect from/to jukebox/player).
> >
> > There's no X on this box - why should there be if it's headless?
>
>    so that you can display whatever you want to display on another
> machine. I am not saying you should be using it but just because the
> box is headless doesn't mean there shouldn't be X installed.

A - X is massively overkill for running a single app
B - Remote X shenanegans would need to be danced for several users and 
client machines
C - I don't know and have no need/desire to learn how to set up secure 
remote X connectons
D - I want to be able to use it from Windows, Linux and console only 
clients

>
> > If I was intending to have this server stream to clients on the
> > network then, yes, configuring it to stream to itself would be
> > appropriate. But I'm not - that introduces all sorts of timing and
> > bandwidth issues.
>
>    timing - possibly, might be important for full-duplex recording
> but for audio player???

Two clients playing the same stream are not going to play in sync - only 
slightly off but enough to be annoying. The house stereo can pipe music 
to every room with no sync issues.

>
>    bandwidth - what bandwidth? it's on local box. no network
> involved.

I meant that streaming in general has bandwidth issues, which is why I'm 
not particularly interested in it. Of course it doesn't matter a toss 
machine internal, but to the several clients around the house it would 
take a toll on the performance. And would need each machine to be 
powered on and logged in.

> yes there is overhead which might be significant if you are 
> using a really really low end machine, think calculator (but if
> you're already running web server and audio player it cannot be that
> low end)

And PHP and MySQL, and... 

>
>    maybe you could just try it and see if it works well enough, I
> have an impression that you simpy said "no streaming" and that's it.

Not quite, I'd prefer not to stream mainly because it's unnecessary in 
principle and I personally like things to be lean if possible. 

> It might be better to specify functional requirements (like what you
> want it to do, what machine you have available for it etc.)

I have just such a list, and the server is already functional.

> and then 
> try various solutions and see which one works best.

Hence why I asked if there was a system available already to try out - 
I've had no luck getting any of the dozen or so I've tried to work, but 
that's likely to be a PHP/MySQL issue.

> Not saying you  
> _shuld_ use streaming but no harm trying it and if you find juke box
> you really like and it only can do streaming and you get acceptable
> performance then why not use that solution?

Ultimately, I want to write my own system, so that I get *exactly* what 
I want, but I'm looking at several to see what I like and what I don't 
like so I can refine my specification.

>
>    I did try number of them (jukeboxes) and didn't notice any
> difference in performance (IIRC that was on pentium 1G)

This is (currently) a Celeron133, with 128M, but will likely end up a 
K6-II

Dylan

-- 
"I see your Schwartz is as big as mine" 
                                  -Dark Helmet