Squeezebox Touch -- Modifications - Page 6 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Source & Line > PC Based

PC Based Computer music servers, crossovers, and equalization

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 19th October 2010, 11:55 PM   #51
phofman is offline phofman  Czech Republic
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Pilsen
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundcheck View Post
Hi folks.


I added a new tweak to the blog.


Chapter 1.4. Alsa Buffer Size Reduction


Give it a try. Highly recommended!


Cheers

What practical reason is there for reducing the alsa buffer, making thus the device more susceptible to xruns and putting more load on its CPU?
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2010, 07:57 AM   #52
diyAudio Member
 
soundcheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D
Quote:
Originally Posted by phofman View Post
What practical reason is there for reducing the alsa buffer, making thus the device more susceptible to xruns and putting more load on its CPU?
Just give it a try.


No further discussions from my side!

Last edited by soundcheck; 20th October 2010 at 07:59 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2010, 08:04 AM   #53
phofman is offline phofman  Czech Republic
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Pilsen
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundcheck View Post
Just give it a try. No further discussions from my side!
Why not trying to change something else, just pick anything randomly. It would be about the same.

This "tweak" has absolutely no logical and technical sense, unless the device is used for movie sound and the default latency is too large which I very doubt is the case. Well, increasing the latency to minimize risk of xruns and reduce CPU load would make sense to me, but reducing absolutely not.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2010, 08:05 AM   #54
diyAudio Member
 
soundcheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D
Hi folks.

I added another tweak: "Screen Off"

More information you'll find on the blog.


Same procedure. Download and execute the screen script.



BTW:
I didn't realize that the buffer script (mod 1.4.) was not "shared with public" yesterday. I corrected that.


Enjoy.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2010, 08:16 AM   #55
diyAudio Member
 
soundcheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D
Quote:
Originally Posted by phofman View Post
Why not trying to change something else, just pick anything randomly. It would be about the same.

This "tweak" has absolutely no logical and technical sense, unless the device is used for movie sound and the default latency is too large which I very doubt is the case.
Please don't highjack this thread. We've had these kind is discussions a hundred times over at the Linux Audio thread.

Write your own blog about "your opinions".

I provide a script and instructions. Real stuff. Not just hot air statements. Everybody can try it. And remove it!

The new scripts let you even toggle the mods to do ABX testing more easily.

On purpose I don't even say what to expect.


I don't have to explain nor I have to sell anything here!!!!! Period.

I am putting quite some free-of-charge efforts into all that..I'd expect you to respect that!!

I'd appreciate constructive feedback. That's about it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2010, 08:24 AM   #56
diyAudio Member
 
soundcheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D
Hi folks.

BTW:

The Stereophile Review of the Touch is online now.

Cheers
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2010, 08:26 AM   #57
phofman is offline phofman  Czech Republic
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Pilsen
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundcheck View Post
I'd appreciate constructive feedback. That's about it.
My feedback is - reducing alsa buffers will reduce latency, on the other hand increase the risk of dropouts and increase CPU load while bringing no audible improvement as there is absolutely no reason why it should. That is as constructive as it can be.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2010, 08:40 AM   #58
diyAudio Member
 
soundcheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D
Quote:
Originally Posted by phofman View Post
My feedback is - reducing alsa buffers will reduce latency, on the other hand increase the risk of dropouts and increase CPU load while bringing no audible improvement as there is absolutely no reason why it should. That is as constructive as it can be.
If you would have read my blog, you'd stepped over a remark about XRUNS on low buffer sizes I've been experiencing
by choosing lowest buffer values.

I'd assume that you neither read the blog, nor that you've tested the modification proposal.

Your feedback doesn't add any value and just follows a well known and a hundred times experienced purpose.
Again -- I'd appreciate if you would stay out of this thread with this kind of attitude!!!!

Constructive feedback I consider:

1. script improvement proposals (I am not a programmer)
2. blog improvement or correction proposals
3. new tweak ideas
4. tweak improvement proposals
5. experiences


THX

Last edited by soundcheck; 20th October 2010 at 08:43 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2010, 09:30 AM   #59
phofman is offline phofman  Czech Republic
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Pilsen
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundcheck View Post
If you would have read my blog, you'd stepped over a remark about XRUNS on low buffer sizes I've been experiencing
by choosing lowest buffer values.

I'd assume that you neither read the blog, nor that you've tested the modification proposal.

Your feedback doesn't add any value and just follows a well known and a hundred times experienced purpose.
Again -- I'd appreciate if you would stay out of this thread with this kind of attitude!!!!

Constructive feedback I consider:

1. script improvement proposals (I am not a programmer)
2. blog improvement or correction proposals
3. new tweak ideas
4. tweak improvement proposals
5. experiences


THX
Soundcheck,

I have read your blog. I did not find any explanation why reducing the buffers should make
any difference, what is the intention behind the tweak your highly recommend.

IMO, if you want to reduce CPU noise, the ways are:

* maximizing buffers in the player and the DMA buffers (buffer_size of alsa)

* raising MTU of ethernet packets from the sound server to make the communication as rare as possible

* shutting down all unnecessary services - you have done that

* shutting down all unnecessary hardware - if the information how to do that is available

* running most calculations on the server

* reducing CPU clock, voltage (if possible)

Plus improving the PSU, feeding the audio part from separate PSU, improving the audio part clock, if it has a separate crystal (we could find out that), improving the analog part (not an easy hack though), and many other tweaks. All of this makes sense to me.

I will not buy the hardware as I do not need it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 20th October 2010, 10:25 AM   #60
diyAudio Member
 
soundcheck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D
What you state you'll find pretty much on the blog (as scripts that everybody can run -- this is not just talk!) and in the Linux Audio thread I started 4 years ago.

That's nothing new.

I am telling you. you are wrong about your theoretical buffer philosophy
in the case of SB Touch - at least when is comes to the listening experience!

Unfortunately you have to stay on a "philosophical side", since you
don't even own the product.
I said that already twice. This is the wrong place for you!
There comes absolutely no value with your postings.

Open up your own thread and fill it up with your own wisdom and measurements. I'm really getting tired of this bu..sh.. .


Thx
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
question to Squeezebox Touch users Martin Prothero PC Based 50 13th August 2010 11:27 PM
Which PS for Squeezebox Touch upgrade? Twisted Pear Placid, or AMB σ11? orpheus PC Based 8 4th June 2010 10:52 AM
Squeezebox Receiver Modifications jkeny Digital Source 3 12th March 2010 09:22 AM
Finish of the speaker, the final touch.. thanx Multi-Way 3 20th November 2007 04:12 AM
Squeezebox 3 I_Forgot Digital Source 0 3rd January 2006 04:16 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:38 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2