Squeezebox 3 - Going to have to settle for MP3 rather than FLAC...

[NeilF]

Well, I spent about 5-6hrs trying to get my SB working last night.

The unit is in my lounge about 15ft away from my router which is in my study.

It appears from some posts on the slimdevices forums my wireless network is simply not up to the rate FLAC requires. It cannot transmit 1000kbps reliably enough. 500kbps yes, but not 1000kbps.

And this is with the unit in a compromised position in the louge, ie: not where I'd ideally like it, but somewhere where I can put up with it - This position is about 5-6ft closer to the router and increases the signal strength from about 30 odd % upto about 60-70 odd %.

So, I think if I wish to use the unit I'll have to use 320K MP3 instead of FLAC. I'm not overly concerned about this as from what I've read (& thus far tested) it's very hard to hear any difference, even when actively comparing the two, yet alone just listening to it 'none-the-wiser'. Also it means I use about a third of the disc space as well

Just wondering what other SB owners have encountered with their wireless config etc?

[Autopilot]

Signal strength is signal strength, not signal speed. 50% signal strength does not mean you will be running at 50% the speed. If it got really bad, you might get some drop outs - but while its working it will be normal speed. But the buffer on the SB3 is very good.

I ran an ad-hok (the worst and most unreliable type) wireless network at slow 'b' speeds for a year (often at 20-30% signal), not even a single glitch - all with FLAC.

Don't panic, rip to FLAC. It will be fine

There are other benefits to FLAC too, do some searching - achieving with lossless files had been talked about a lot recently.

[NeilF]

Originally Posted by Autopilot

Signal strength is signal strength, not signal speed. 50% signal strength does not mean you will be running at 50% the speed. If it got really bad, you might get some drop outs - but while its working it will be normal speed. But the buffer on the SB3 is very good.

I ran an ad-hok (the worst and most unreliable type) wireless network at slow 'b' speeds for a year (often at 20-30% signal), not even a single glitch - all with FLAC.

Don't panic, rip to FLAC. It will be fine

There are other benefits to FLAC too, do some searching - achieving with lossless files had been talked about a lot recently.

I cannot currently use FLAC - Simple as that.

If I try using this format:-
- If I try using the menu (eg: to find another track) on the SB I get stuttering almost straight away.
- If I use the PC (slimserver) to do almost anything, again the stuttering starts.

If I do tests from the SB to the slimserver 1000k gets a rating of about 50% I think, whereas 500k gets around 100%.

If I use 320K mp3 the unit seems rock solid, I guess as this is well below 500k speeds.


I'll do some more tests thanks to some helpful advice from the Slimdevices forum to try and improve my wireless network, but I don't think it will help enough to make FLAC viable.


For all accounts (& my own quick tests) its very hard to hear any difference between CD and 320K MP3, yet alone say if it just sounds a bit different or worse! And also I'm going through an AV amp not a dedicated stereo one, so I suspect that will make it nigh on impossible to hear any difference!

So to have a usuable SB, with a third the disc usage, I'm happy to go LAME 320k MP3

[badbob]

If you're having wireless problems, and have to use lossy instead of lossless, I would choose OGG over MP3. Sounds better imo.

320kps mp3 still sounds "wrong"

[Autopilot]

I think there is something else going on, you dont need a huge amount of bandwidth for FLAC. What's in the transcoding options in SS? FLAC- FLAC or FLAC to WAV? It could also be a server problem, does you PC slow down a lot when using it? do you have anti-virus (Norton wreaks havoc with this kind of think).


The reason MP3's sound better is probably because they are easier to buffer by the SB3 - the stuttering remember is when the buffer gets empty - not when the network cuts out or slows down (although they will cause the buffer to become empty). Using MP3 is helping, but the underlying problem could be a number of things like interference. And if thats the case, you are still going to get problems in the future so its worth getting the FLAC problem sorted rather than settling for MP3.


FLAC is good BTW because you can transcode to to other formats without having to rip your CD's ever again. Very helpful if you have a large amount of CD's.

Good luck

[NeilF]

Originally Posted by badbob

If you're having wireless problems, and have to use lossy instead of lossless, I would choose OGG over MP3. Sounds better imo.

320kps mp3 still sounds "wrong"

Don't know much about OGG but unless it compressed the track down then it won't help. I need files that are less than 500k/s, eg: 320k MP3s. FLAC are up at about 1000K/s which my network isn't handling

As for your opinion on "wrong", that is your opinion. I'll test again tonight, but thus far I really cannot hear a difference on my setup.

[NeilF]

Originally Posted by Autopilot

I think there is something else going on, you dont need a huge amount of bandwidth for FLAC. What's in the transcoding options in SS? FLAC- FLAC or FLAC to WAV? It could also be a server problem, does you PC slow down a lot when using it? do you have anti-virus (Norton wreaks havoc with this kind of think).


The reason MP3's sound better is probably because they are easier to buffer by the SB3 - the stuttering remember is when the buffer gets empty - not when the network cuts out or slows down (although they will cause the buffer to become empty). Using MP3 is helping, but the underlying problem could be a number of things like interference. And if thats the case, you are still going to get problems in the future so its worth getting the FLAC problem sorted rather than settling for MP3.

FLAC is good BTW because you can transcode to to other formats without having to rip your CD's ever again. Very helpful if you have a large amount of CD's.

Surely you need around 1000K/s of bandwidth for FLAC? In my case my 1000k/s test from the SB shows very poor results, hence my problem(s).

The machine in question is a nice clean 3Ghz machine. I actually closed down virtually everything I could on it, including AVG. No I don't use Norton - Blah!


The options (ticked) in SS for File Types>FILE FORMAT CONVERSION SETUP are:-
File: FLAC - Stream: FLAC - Decoder: (Built-in)
File: FLAC - Stream: WAV - Decoder: flac

What does that mean?


I generated the FLAC files in MediaMonkey with the FLAC option set to the highest compression.

[badbob]

Originally Posted by NeilF

Don't know much about OGG but unless it compressed the track down then it won't help. I need files that are less than 500k/s, eg: 320k MP3s. FLAC are up at about 1000K/s which my network isn't handling

As for your opinion on "wrong", that is your opinion. I'll test again tonight, but thus far I really cannot hear a difference on my setup.

OGG is a lossless audio format, like MP3. But it's generally held in higher regard for sound quality at much lower bitrate. Sb3 supports OGG so that isn't a problem.

Mp3 sounds splashy, and bass seems to be overblown. With OGG it sounds more like the original CD with no nasty lossy artefacts.

[NeilF]

Originally Posted by badbob

OGG is a lossless audio format, like MP3. But it's generally held in higher regard for sound quality at much lower bitrate. Sb3 supports OGG so that isn't a problem.

Mp3 sounds splashy, and bass seems to be overblown. With OGG it sounds more like the original CD with no nasty lossy artefacts.

Umm.. OGG is not lossless isn't it?

And according to this OGG and LAME MP3 are much the same... http://www.digit-life.com/articles/oggvslame/

[badbob]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg

Supports 16kps-500kps. 128kps OGG sounds far better than 128kps (both VBR) and 182kps OGG sounds better than 320kps MP3 (both VBR) IMO

Umm.. OGG is lossless isn't it?

err no.

And according to this OGG and LAME MP3 are much the same

Nope, played back OGG and MP3 on a expensive Naim system, double blind ABX test, a Hi-Fi nut preferred the OGG version.

[BlueMan]

I'm not sure of your layout/logistics but could you use 85Mbps homeplugs as the transmission medium rather than wireless? Not very expensive for just two.

[NeilF]

Originally Posted by BlueMan

I'm not sure of your layout/logistics but could you use 85Mbps homeplugs as the transmission medium rather than wireless? Not very expensive for just two.

A pair of these is going to be like £50! (eg: Solwise 85 Mbps ones)

Do I need the 85mbps ones (bearing in mind you'll never get near their suggested figures)? The far cheaper 1.4mbps ones would be risking it probably for FLAC?! ie: If they don't get any where near 1.4mbps and drop below 1mbps.

[NeilF]

Originally Posted by badbob

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogg

Supports 16kps-500kps. 128kps OGG sounds far better than 128kps (both VBR) and 182kps OGG sounds better than 320kps MP3 (both VBR) IMO



err no.



Nope, played back OGG and MP3 on a expensive Naim system, double blind ABX test, a Hi-Fi nut preferred the OGG version.

SOrry I was stating OGG IS lossful The previous guy had said (by mistake I think) it was lossless


So if I used 320kbps OGG (q9?) instead of 320kps MP3?

[badbob]

So if I used 320kbps OGG (q9?) instead of 320kps MP3?

Yup. Try auToV OGG encoder. Use VBR, otherwise silence will still take up space.

[NeilF]

Originally Posted by badbob

Yup. Try auToV OGG encoder. Use VBR, otherwise silence will still take up space.

I'll use the OGG encoder in MediaMonkey on Q9 setting. This is 320kbps, which actually works out at about 348, and makes the file just a bit bigger than the MP3 version I believe...