13 Aug
2004
13 Aug
'04
11:19 p.m.
Dylan wrote:
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.
there's some disconnect here - functionally there is no difference
between local player and the player that uses stream. Regardless of
whether you are using streaming or not you can pipe it to house stereo.
Or perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are trying to do.
I am not suggesting you add machines to your home and stream it to
those machines. What I was suggesting is to use the streaming just like
you would use the local client. The only difference is that instead of
controlling the player directly (in one way or another, depending on
player) the server only controls what is being streamed and the player
essentially sits there and plays the stream (i.e. you never touch
controls on the player), output goes to the home stereo.
on a modern operating system there is already so much stuff that you
don't neccessarily need that streaming or not streaming does not make
much change (IMO). To get a really minimalistic solution you'd have to
have a DOS box:-)
what is the list? which server are you using? I could try to remember
the testing/evaluations I did and post something useful if I knew what
exactly do you want to do...
erik
On Saturday 14 Aug 2004 00:02 am, Erik Steffl wrote:
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
you don't run X on the server, just the X client (e.g. xmms), you
have to have some x libraries but X is not running on server
Dylan wrote:
No, but it's an accademic point anyway - the machine would be more than
capable of doing it.
On Friday 13 Aug 2004 20:02 pm, Erik Steffl
wrote:
no need to be sorry, did you measure it? 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. 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? 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
it's not that complicated:
ssh -X erik(a)zasran.com xterm
D - I want to be able to use it from Windows, Linux
and console only
clients
X server for windows might not be a good idea (commercial ones are
expensive, free ones don't seem to be very good), vnc might be a better
solution but that still leaves console only systems out.
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??? 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.