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
