Advantages of MinimStreamer

[simoncn]

(14-05-2014 18:49)gnomus Wrote:  Well done Simon! As far as I can tell you have fixed the 'issue'. I tried a few tracks. Probably the most "challenging" was a 24 minute 88/24 track. I could jump from start to finish and back again (and all points inbetween) with an estimated delay of just under a second. That's more than good enough for me. (I'm pleased about that because I'm not really sure I got my head around that 'seek table' business.)

I hope that feedback is helpful. Let me know if you want me to try out anything else. And thanks again for continuing to improve your server/streamer.

Thanls for letting me know. My goal was to speed up seeking so it takes less than a second in almost all cases, so I'm pleased with this feedback.

[Peter@57m]

(13-05-2014 23:09)simoncn Wrote:  Try this again with MinimStreamer 0.3.18. You should see a significant improvement in seek times for transcoded FLAC files that don't contain a seek table.

Wow, this is really impressive. A very welcome improvement. Skipping around a 19 minute track is almost instant

[simoncn]

(14-05-2014 21:10)Peter@57m Wrote:  Wow, this is really impressive. A very welcome improvement. Skipping around a 19 minute track is almost instant

Glad you like it! The code was quite tricky to write and I'm hoping that it will handle all FLAC files correctly.

[mccormw]

(23-04-2014 12:38)gnomus Wrote:  

(23-04-2014 12:31)simoncn Wrote:  

(23-04-2014 12:26)gnomus Wrote:  FLAC files were ripped (uncompressed) via DBPowerAmp. I have no idea what a seek table is. If you tell me how to find out, I could have a look.

Please upload the file you were using for the test to my FTP server and I will look at its internal structure. I will PM you the server details now.

Is there a reason why you ripped the files uncompressed? This takes more disk space and it might increase the time it takes to do track seeking in MinimStreamer.

To be clear, you want both the files containing the two tracks on the album I was trying to play?

I went for uncompressed after a bit of Internet searching into the WAV vs Flac debate. There are folks, it seems, who believe that that one should rip to WAV files (the chap in my audio shop does this). I saw at least one post suggesting that uncompressed FLAC was a "compromise" position.

I would be mightily depressed at the thought of having to re-rip all my CDs again. I estimate that I have spent >50 hours on this so far (I am just starting to rip the "Classical" stuff now.)

Did you rip as uncompressed FLAC or as WAV? If it was FLAC I guess you set compression to a minimum.
At the start of this thread JOTA gave NAIM's position on this. They reckon that the extra processing causes the processor to warm up a bit and raises the thermal noise floor. As far as I know they do not offer any data though.
Record to FLAC, set the compression to 5 and then transcode to WAV on playback. That way you get the best of both worlds.
Personally I am not convinced there is any difference between in sound quality between WAV, FLAC or FLAC --> WAV.

ps probably best not to listen to a dealer! They will then try to sell you an exotic hookup cable for many hundreds or even thousands of pounds.

[bbrip]

they will even sell you a golden ethernet cable and platinum beer mats if you're not careful