Your Digital Media Has Never Looked So Good

 
partymonkey
Topic Author
Posts: 23
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 6:01 pm

Firefly and other servers

Wed May 17, 2006 2:51 pm

I just want to state that I bought a Soundbridge because it could stream Rhapsody and other "common" servers. After reading several things, I still haven't really figured out what I would use Firefly for or how it fits in with the other servers, but please do not consider removing support for servers such as Rhapsody from the Soundbridge.
 
jcswright
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Apr 04, 2006 3:22 pm

Thu May 18, 2006 2:48 am

I agree - I've looked over the 'Firefly Media Server' forum, and read the topic 'What is the firefly media server?' and I still don't really have any idea what it is or why I should use it over Windows Media Connect - which I prefer since I feel it is the server least likely to cause other problems. After all, it's practically bundled with Windows XP so you wouldn't write an application that didn't co-exist happily with it.

Aside from that it doesn't seem integrated enough into Windows for me (for example not recognising Windows Media Player playlists), and there are other media servers such as On2Share (which is being worked on at the moment to work with the Soundbridge) that I would like to retain compatability with.

Having said that, I recognise that Firefly will just be working with normal uPnP stuff as do the other servers, so I guess support for the others can't be removed - but I also know that Soundbridge works better with some servers than others, and I would be disappointed to see it become optimised for something other than Windows Media Connect.

I also realise that there are plenty of other commands available for the Soundbridge which enhance its functionality, but my personal view is that they are best used in applications seperate to the server, such as Mark Heaton's Roku Soundbridge Controller.

Jon
 
Richard72
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 10:51 pm
Location: Eindhoven (NL)
Contact:

Thu May 18, 2006 3:10 am

Well, you only need one server to stream the music to your SB.
I've tried WMC first, because I didn't get other servers to work. But WMC is very slow in browsing (with a huge MP3 database) and it doesn't update itself (when you add music or change tags).
So that's why I tried Firefly since yesterday (with more configuration possible). I must say, that was a great improvement! When I browse for artists (Now I have about 1700) in one second I have the complete list of artists displayed on my SB. With WMC I had to wait about ten seconds.
If you're happy about WMC, then stick with it. Which wasn't my case so now I'm using firefly..... 8)
 
richdunlop
Posts: 798
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 12:29 am
Location: UK

Thu May 18, 2006 1:29 pm

jcswright wrote:
I agree - I've looked over the 'Firefly Media Server' forum, and read the topic 'What is the firefly media server?' and I still don't really have any idea what it is or why I should use it over Windows Media Connect - which I prefer since I feel it is the server least likely to cause other problems. After all, it's practically bundled with Windows XP so you wouldn't write an application that didn't co-exist happily with it.


If you only have WMC compatible media and you're happy using a PC as a media server then WMC will be just fine for you. As long as you don't run into any of the bugs of course :wink:... However, there are servers that perform better, support more diverse media, run on numerous hardware platforms and IMHO are more stable. Firefly, in its guise of mt-daapd, is one of those. It all comes down to your individual requirements.

jcswright wrote:
Having said that, I recognise that Firefly will just be working with normal uPnP stuff as do the other servers, so I guess support for the others can't be removed - but I also know that Soundbridge works better with some servers than others, and I would be disappointed to see it become optimised for something other than Windows Media Connect.


Firefly uses the new Roku proprietary RSP protocol in addition to Apple's DAAP protocol (for Roku branded equipment). It doesn't use UPNP. RSP gives Roku the opportunity to deliver functionality (I'm hoping for synchronised playback) that can't easily be achieved with the existing protocols such as DAAP or UPNP. Don't forget that Roku don't control the specification of DAAP or UPNP.

As for the client side, the Soundbridge currently supports all three protocols and Roku appear committed to all of them so I don't think you need be concerned about UPNP/WMC compatibility. However, I think we will see a scenario developing where features become available on the Soundbridge that only work with RSP servers simply because RSP is the only route Roku have to implementing them.
 
grommet
Posts: 1718
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 9:31 pm
Location: S.F. Bay Area, CA

Thu May 18, 2006 8:48 pm

Richard72 wrote:
But WMC is very slow in browsing (with a huge MP3 database) and it doesn't update itself (when you add music or change tags).
The "browsing speed" has more to do with bloated XL based UPnP AV than WMC 2.0. Welcome to "standards." DAAP and RSP are far more efficient.

WMC does automatically see changes. I drop content onto my WMC 2.0 server all the time... and it automatically appears on the SoundBridge. I don't reboot or restart. WMC 2.0 "watches" the disk for additions/changes. Not sure why you had issues...
 
ajayre
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 11:48 am
Location: Tucson, AZ, USA

Tue May 23, 2006 12:10 pm

I use FMS/mt-daapd simply because it is lightweight and runs on my linux server. I wanted to be able to listen to music without having any of my Windows based PCs turned on.

Andy
SB M1001, mt-daapd on SuSE 9.2, Netgear WGR614v6

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest