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