Post Reply 
Sound quality comparison
29-08-2014, 18:14
Post: #31
RE: Sound quality comparison
(29-08-2014 18:07)simoncn Wrote:  Do these configurable capabilities include custom transcoding settings?

I keep a copy of Twonky around to check on things like this. There is a transcoding settings page which doesn't seem to include any capability to customize transcoding by renderer type.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2014, 19:28
Post: #32
RE: Sound quality comparison
(29-08-2014 18:07)simoncn Wrote:  
(29-08-2014 17:48)krutsch Wrote:  How does Twonky solve this problem? I know you can configure Twonky server-side with a set of capabilities, based on renderer type (e.g. Pioneer AVR, Sony Blu-ray player) and then drive from a control point and it just sort of works (as much as Twonky works at all Dodgy )

Do these configurable capabilities include custom transcoding settings?

They do. There are device-specific XML files that define a device profile, which includes (among other things) the ability to define what is / isn't supported by the renderer. I've edited these in the past to make minor adjustments to make my old Denon or Sony renderers work better, but it's been awhile since I played around with editing these files.

To see an example how this can be done to transcode video, based on the device (renderer) type, see here: http://twonkyforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10682

Again, you know more about this than I do, so it may be that this approach is going down the wrong alley.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2014, 20:32
Post: #33
RE: Sound quality comparison
(29-08-2014 19:28)krutsch Wrote:  They do. There are device-specific XML files that define a device profile, which includes (among other things) the ability to define what is / isn't supported by the renderer. I've edited these in the past to make minor adjustments to make my old Denon or Sony renderers work better, but it's been awhile since I played around with editing these files.

To see an example how this can be done to transcode video, based on the device (renderer) type, see here: http://twonkyforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10682

Again, you know more about this than I do, so it may be that this approach is going down the wrong alley.

Thanks for the pointer. Are you sure that in this example Twonky is selecting the transcoding target based on PS3 being the renderer rather than PS3 being the control point?

An audio example would be more useful from my point of view because I could attempt to recreate it and see what protocol is being sent on the wire. I don't play video (transcoded or not).
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2014, 15:36
Post: #34
RE: Sound quality comparison
(29-08-2014 13:08)simoncn Wrote:  The next version of MinimStreamer will support multiple streams (original and/or transcoded). As previously explained, the control point decides which of the streams to play based on the capabilities advertised by the renderer. When this feature is available, I will be interested to get feedback on how well it works with various renderers and control points.

This feature is available now in MinimStreamer 0.4.2. You also need to install MinimServer update 36.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2014, 16:29
Post: #35
RE: Sound quality comparison
What about virtual hosts? If the server opens multiple ports and offers multiple upnp servers, each server could be configured with another transcoding output. The user could chose the right upnp server for the renderer he wants to play music on.

Another thing to mention: the synology media server can be configured with different profiles for each client: The control point can be configured to get high resolution cover art delivered. And the renderer can be configured e.g. as generic renderer that only does understand mp3 or wav, even if it normally supports flac and ogg. For these types the server can transcode to wav automatically. So maybe there is a way for the server to decide which formats to deliver. I think it is bounded to the ip address.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2014, 17:57
Post: #36
RE: Sound quality comparison
(30-08-2014 16:29)tarnkappe Wrote:  What about virtual hosts? If the server opens multiple ports and offers multiple upnp servers, each server could be configured with another transcoding output. The user could chose the right upnp server for the renderer he wants to play music on.

This is the approach I am hoping to take for adding multiple instance support at some stage. This will require some internal restructurng of MinimServer, so it isn't a simple task.

Quote:Another thing to mention: the synology media server can be configured with different profiles for each client: The control point can be configured to get high resolution cover art delivered. And the renderer can be configured e.g. as generic renderer that only does understand mp3 or wav, even if it normally supports flac and ogg. For these types the server can transcode to wav automatically. So maybe there is a way for the server to decide which formats to deliver. I think it is bounded to the ip address.

Thanks for the pointer. The settings on the transcoding page appear to apply to all renderers. There is another page that allows you to choose different profiles for different devices, but I couldn't see how to edit or create one of these profiles.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2014, 18:27
Post: #37
RE: Sound quality comparison
(30-08-2014 17:57)simoncn Wrote:  Thanks for the pointer. The settings on the transcoding page appear to apply to all renderers. There is another page that allows you to choose different profiles for different devices, but I couldn't see how to edit or create one of these profiles.

I found the file containing the profile definitions. There wasn't anything in there related to transcoding.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2014, 19:01
Post: #38
RE: Sound quality comparison
(30-08-2014 15:36)simoncn Wrote:  
(29-08-2014 13:08)simoncn Wrote:  The next version of MinimStreamer will support multiple streams (original and/or transcoded). As previously explained, the control point decides which of the streams to play based on the capabilities advertised by the renderer. When this feature is available, I will be interested to get feedback on how well it works with various renderers and control points.

This feature is available now in MinimStreamer 0.4.2. You also need to install MinimServer update 36.

That was fast :-) I'll check this out and post back.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2014, 19:27
Post: #39
RE: Sound quality comparison
(30-08-2014 19:01)krutsch Wrote:  
(30-08-2014 15:36)simoncn Wrote:  This feature is available now in MinimStreamer 0.4.2. You also need to install MinimServer update 36.

That was fast :-) I'll check this out and post back.

OK, updated and tried some tracks. On the original issue, I see that M4A files transcode just fine (i.e. mp4:wav24 works) - thanks for fixing that!

I tried some FLAC, MP3 and AAC tracks and they all transcode to wav24 (sounding great) and BubbleUPnP (control point) only displays one stream: Stream #1 WAV, 24 bits, stereo, blah, blah...

Previously, I would see multiple streams in the meta data pop on bubble. Is this what you wanted? Is the stream.transcode property forcing the codec?

I'm not sure I understand what's changed with respect to transcoding.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
30-08-2014, 19:37 (This post was last modified: 30-08-2014 19:38 by simoncn.)
Post: #40
RE: Sound quality comparison
(30-08-2014 19:27)krutsch Wrote:  OK, updated and tried some tracks. On the original issue, I see that M4A files transcode just fine (i.e. mp4:wav24 works) - thanks for fixing that!

I tried some FLAC, MP3 and AAC tracks and they all transcode to wav24 (sounding great) and BubbleUPnP (control point) only displays one stream: Stream #1 WAV, 24 bits, stereo, blah, blah...

Previously, I would see multiple streams in the meta data pop on bubble. Is this what you wanted? Is the stream.transcode property forcing the codec?

I'm not sure I understand what's changed with respect to transcoding.

Please provide specific instructions for me to reproduce this.

1) What was your stream.transcode setting with MinimStreamer 0.4.1 or earlier? What was the input type and what streams did this show in BubbleUPnP?

2) What is your stream.transcode setting with MinimStreamer 0.4.2? What is the input type and what streams does this show in BubbleUPnP?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)