More > JRiver Media Center 20 for Linux
JRiver as a Package on a Synology NAS
Al ex:
Great news.
Jim, will the embedded version allow to stream flac and mp4? Or music only?
I have a Synology ds214 play with Atom (1.6 GHz I guess). Should that be sufficient?
I often read that people plan an i5 or even i7 for htpc's & jriver, so I am wondering, if an Atom would be ok enough...
JimH:
You'll have to wait for more on this. We're not close to releasing anything and it may never be released as a consumer product.
ogs:
--- Quote from: Al ex on February 01, 2014, 10:22:59 am ---Great news.
Jim, will the embedded version allow to stream flac and mp4? Or music only?
I have a Synology ds214 play with Atom (1.6 GHz I guess). Should that be sufficient?
I often read that people plan an i5 or even i7 for htpc's & jriver, so I am wondering, if an Atom would be ok enough...
--- End quote ---
I agree. Great news!
Yesterday I tried the full MC19 on a tiny Atom 1.6GHz laptop with Win Xp. Playing stereo tracks cpu was around 50-60% with convolution enabled, but I got some 'clicks'. Without convolution, playback was clean and stable all the way up to 24/192 (using a Stello U3 USB device). I'd think the same Cpu with a Linux OS would be even more efficient. For video and/or multichannel sound I have doubts..
connersw:
Just to get an idea of minimum specs, I also run a full version of MC on an Atom D2700 (2.13GHz, Dual Core, 1M Cache) client. It has 4GB of RAM and a 32GB SSD running Win7 32-bit.
I watch video w/ ROSQ without issue using the integrated graphics. Music is fine over-sampled to 24/192 w/ ~50% CPU usage while displaying Milkdrop. The only issue is that I can not down-sample SACD ISO (severe stuttering; completely unplayable). If I want to listen to them, I have to push them from the server with conversion. Navigating can be a bit sluggish sometimes as well, particularly with the remote. Navigating with Gizmo works much better, especially when playing all-day DJ and changing tracks on the fly. If I get too aggressive with flipping around tracks though (say switching tracks after listening for just a few seconds a couple times in a row), I will get ~10-seconds of stutter until it catches up. Albums/Playlists, and even changing after a complete track, is not an issue.
I'll have to post my JMark score in that thread later, but if I remember correctly, it is ~950.
PS: For people looking at DLNA DMRs, Rasberry Pi, etc for extra locations around the house, I built this client with all new hardware for < $200US shipped to my door.
csimon:
Just dropping in here...
--- Quote from: Al ex on February 01, 2014, 10:22:59 am ---Jim, will the embedded version allow to stream flac and mp4? Or music only?
I have a Synology ds214 play with Atom (1.6 GHz I guess). Should that be sufficient?
I often read that people plan an i5 or even i7 for htpc's & jriver, so I am wondering, if an Atom would be ok enough...
--- End quote ---
I think so much is up in the air at the moment, but it depends how much functionality would be built into an eventual server/embedded version. Like, is it going to be a just a database/library server where clients will connect to it in order to get data, but the actual playing and audio processing will be done by the clients? In which case, this is what a NAS should excel at and I think this is probably what people are asking for.
If there's a renderer built-in then that implies audio processing. This may stress a NAS, but I guess it depends on individual NAS processors and what sort of processing you want to do and how many streams you want to process at the same time. On my Core i7 dual-core mobile processor running Windows 7 and MC, playing 4 different audio tracks with processing at the same time pushes CPU to about 5%. However, all Synology NAS's can certainly be used as players, at least if you plug an external USB DAC in.
Streaming video should be fine, but playing video is another matter.
Obviously, the more functionality of the client that is built into a server version the more demands it will place on server hardware. In my opinion, servers should be servers, not desktop workstations!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version