radioclash said: Sounds like PSA will continue to support V1 owners as well as working on the development of V2.
Please define "support".
Well, WaveStreamer for one. PSA could have just chosen to walk away from the Bridge V1 and its owners, but instead has spent much time and money devoloping this software. I appreciate that, as I'm sure many others do. Frustrating that it has taken so long? Of course.
Paul has also mentioned that the Silent Server has not been forgotten and will continue to be developed.
Paul's refusal to walk away from the frustrations of the Bridge V1 and its current shortcomings speaks a lot about the company and why I support them.
Thanks guys and I know it’s frustrating. I have no intention of walking away from V1 owners. We will work on a V2, that’s always been in the plan, and continue developing a solution for the thousands of V1 owners as well.
Paul McGowan said: When a gapless command is issued the next track to be played must be requested, some of it loaded into the the Bridge and as soon as the current track is finished, the player needs to be closed then reopened and the second track loaded and begin playing without any pause.
Yes, this is how it should work. But the used VLC library does not (and was never meant to) support this method. This is why it does not work.
Yes, if done from scratch. No, if an existing solution (or a part of it) is used.
radioclash said: Well, WaveStreamer for one. PSA could have just chosen to walk away from the Bridge V1 and its owners, but instead has spent much time and money devoloping this software. I appreciate that, as I'm sure many others do. Frustrating that it has taken so long? Of course.
I do appreciate the efforts. However, I already expressed my opinion about the way the money and time have been and are being spent. I see no progress or (r)evolution here since 4 years back.
Can we assume the V2 has gapless functionality over Upnp, with other words I can remain using my NAS and use it gapless and flawless Hi-res playback? What is the timeframe for the development of V2?
Would it be possible to use two instances of the player in the bridge?
The first instance handles the current track while the second instance buffers the beginning of the next track in queue. When the current track ends, the second instance will be ready to feed the playback buffer.
Would it be possible to use two instances of the player in the bridge?
The first instance handles the current track while the second instance buffers the beginning of the next track in queue. When the current track ends, the second instance will be ready to feed the playback buffer.
QUESTION
Why can the PLAYER not just offer [if requested] all the desired gapless tracks as ONE track to stream?
I suspect that something like this was used in EMM but I wonder why this solution is not more easily imbedded?
If I can stream a 30 minute track then the Bridge memory should not be an issue when playing multiple tracks as one?
Notice the multiple question marks.
I don't think so.
WS just hijacks whatever audio a player is playing and streams it.
The player would have to provide a gapless stream when requested to do so.
Command; if- gapless stream is selected [ combine to single track]
then- gaps and pauses are negated.
result- gapless?
Same as WS - just establish a permanent connection to the Bridge and stream gaplessly whatever you want, but with the same resolution. In this case the result will be less dependent on the Control Point. I suggested this in Simon's forum: http://forum.minimserver.com/showthread.php?tid=655
Don’t you think it would be much more efficient to start the single steam in the “player” rather than WS trying to make a single track? In that case any upnp player could do the work, even on a NAS. An entire album is always the same resolution.
I do not think we should encourage gapless from Stevie Ray redbook to Justin Beber HD. 8-}
Gordon said: Don't you think it would be much more efficient to start the single steam in the "player" rather than WS trying to make a single track?
From what I understand, this is exactly what happens. Control Point tells the Renderer what to pull from the Server. Since the usual CP sees separate Track1, Track2, Track3, etc, it tells the Player to pull Track1, Track2, Track3, hence the gaps, because VLC does not support preloading.
WS becomes the Control Point for the Player/Renderer, and tells it to pull TrackX (instead of T1, T2, T3) from itself (WS also becomes the Server) and streams Track1, Track2, Track3, etc gaplessly "inside" TrackX.