Using fat or thin clients with XLOBBY ???

[Chazotta]

Hi guys,

I am a pivotal point in setting up my four-zone audio system.

I am trying to achieve audio/music control in 4 zones using Xlobby. The main aim of what I am trying to achieve is the synching of zones so that in either of the 4 rooms, I can tell Xlobby to play the same music in all 4 zones at the same time, without any noticeable delays in the zones. Of course, each zone must be able to play different music (ie independently of the others).

The 4 four PC's are ready to go. Each is capable of running Xlobby as a fat client. The PC's are part of a network (1 Gbit).

My understanding is that for mutlizone control, there are essentially two options:

1. Thin client control. This utilizes a primary server running Xlobby which has more than one sound card. I assume that this means that when music is playing in the 4 zones, there are 4 instances of Winamp running on the server and that a certain sound card (or outputs of a card) are assigned to the relevant Winamp application (which in turn is connected to the relevant speakers/amps in the zone/room). I note the document recently created by Steve in the documentation area. This seems fairly straight forward.

2. Fat client control. This utilizes the resources of the client (PC) in each zone. Assuming that music is being played in each zone, each PC will have Winamp open and the music data will be sent and used by Winamp over the network. Each PC has its own sound card which in turn is connected to the amps/speakers for that zone. I assume this uses the XNET config within Xlobby ?

My first question is which is the better way to go ?

I had a quick play with running a fat client with Xlobby last night (only trying two zones). I did manage to get it to sync at one stage, but then later it didn't work. It doesn't seem that stable, but then I'm not sure how to use it properly.

I essentially want the thing to be stable. I would prefer to go fat client, only because I have the PC's capable of it and perhaps later I can do the same thing with movies. Second question, is the fat client XNET method reliable ?

Third question, if you are reading Steve, is there going to be documentation written as to how to utilize the fat client with Xlobby ?

cheers, Mark

[Chazotta]

No takers ?

Is anybody using fat clients for xlobby to achieve mulit-zone audio (ie 2 or more zones) with stable successful synchronisation of zones ? If so how is it achieved /

[rhinoman]

I'm using a single server with muliple soundcards but have tried xnet/fat_client breifly.

In general for both methods the more zones you have the more difficult it is to keep evrything in sync. I find foobar seems to be slightly better than winamp for keeping in sync but in my 8 zone setup i still have problems occaisionally.

[Chazotta]

Hi John

So it seems that with either thin or fat clients, xlobby is not 100% stable on the synchrinization front ? I am guessing, but I suspect that the thin client approach might be more stable ?

I tried again last night with a two zone fat client setup using the green 2 skin. I had reasonably good results when I synched the two zones from the xlobby server. Controlling things then from the fat client seemed to work pretty well. The synching was okay. Things fell apart when I fiddled with a few settings within the fat client. Eventually I get some error message on the xlobby server about failure with resources ?

When I tried synching the zones from the fat client, there seemed to be more problems with getting the synch right and again, I got more of the resources error messages on the server side.

I might try Foobar. What skin do you use ?

As an aside, is there any reason why it takes a very long time to launch xlobby from the server side ? When I launch it, it stays on "please wait" for 2 to 3 minutes ? I don't have this problem when I launch the fat client and the fat client PC has much less grunt than the xlobby server. As far as I can tell, exactly the same version of xlobby is installed on both PC's ??

cheers, Mark

[rhinoman]

So it seems that with either thin or fat clients, xlobby is not 100% stable on the synchrinization front ? I am guessing, but I suspect that the thin client approach might be more stable ?

Its not perfect but its not too awful most of the time, its still on Stevens list of things to look at.

I tried again last night with a two zone fat client setup using the green 2 skin. I had reasonably good results when I synched the two zones from the xlobby server. Controlling things then from the fat client seemed to work pretty well. The synching was okay. Things fell apart when I fiddled with a few settings within the fat client. Eventually I get some error message on the xlobby server about failure with resources ?

It seems more stable when you change and select music from the original zone and it also seems better after a disc change in sync. I find foobra more stable than winamp for syncing.

I use a modified old default skin with changes like easier to get at zonecontrols and volume controls on more pages but I mainly use a ppc with modified screens so the full screen skin doesn't really bother me.

As an aside, is there any reason why it takes a very long time to launch xlobby from the server side ? When I launch it, it stays on "please wait" for 2 to 3 minutes ? I don't have this problem when I launch the fat client and the fat client PC has much less grunt than the xlobby server. As far as I can tell, exactly the same version of xlobby is installed on both PC's ??

Its probably xlobby taking a while to load its database file, do you have a large music collection?

[Chazotta]

My music database is not really that big............. at the moment. I'm sure it is not this because I emptied/deleted all the databases to see if it was the cause. I still get the delay. Very frustrating. I wonder whether it is a network issue or a plugin issue. When I use the default skin, it loads instantly.

[rhinoman]

Some of the other skins use larger more complex graphics which take longer to load.

[Chazotta]

Well I tried Colby 2 skin last night and it loads very fast. I really do wonder if it is a plugin or something else within the skin and how it works.

[hjackson]

Chazotta, your assumption on how the fat client works is not correct. Essentially your assumption really just describes a simpe Xlobby setup, in that the music is played through the same PC that you are using Xlobby on. A fat client is a full running version of Xlobby, but instead of playing music on it's own PC, it is playing music through a different (server) PC. Therefore, both the thin and fat client play music on a different (server) PC. The difference is that the thin client controls ALL the media that is located on the server PC (and only has 2 simple Xlobby files installed), while the fat client only controls the audio media on the server PC (but since it is a full version of Xlobby, it controls all other media on the client PC) As a result, a PDA cannot be a fat client because you cannot install a full version of Xlobby on it...yet...
Both the thin and fat client setups require that multiple soundcards (or a soundcard with multiple outputs) originate from the SERVER PC. The soundcard(s) would then send the audio output to its respective zone. The method in which the soundcards send audio to different zones depends on your set up. I have long speaker wire runs from all my zones that go to my server. With this setup, I can just use my external ampliflied soundcards (they are attached to the server via USB) to power the speakers in my zones. I also have the RCA outputs from one of my server's soundcards connected to a stereo. That stereo then sends audio via the long speaker runs to its zone.
With YOUR setup, you would not use a client at all. You would just have each PC with Xlobby get its music from whichever paths that your music is stored on. I believe with the new Xnet feature, you may still be able to synchronize the different Xlobby PCs.
I hope this clears things up.

hjackson

[Chazotta]

hjackson, I see. It would seem then, that there are 3 methods for snychronizing zones:

1. Using a thin xlobby client;
2. Using a fat xlobby client; and
3. Using Full xlobby with XNET.

I guess what I want, at this point in time, is 100% stability in synchronizing the 4 audio zones that I have. I would prefer the XNET method (assuming I can understand it), but right at this point in time, I don't mind which method I use. I can tailor my equipment and setup in using either 1, 2 or 3 above. I'm at the point of finalising my setup. The 4 PC's are ready to go, but I haven't run the CAT 5 yet, oor the audio cabling (line-level or speaker).

Which of these methods, as far as you know, provides 100% stability on the syncrhronization front ?

regards, Mark


BTW... the fat client seems almost pointless then does it not, if all your media lives on a separate server (that is, there is no media to be controlled on the fat client PC) ?

[rhinoman]

Chazotta,

Your thinking is not quite right, the thin client is purely for remote controlling a xlobby server, whether it have 1 or more zones running from it.

The fat client can be used to remote control a server and control the zones running from it, if you are using it as a remote this works much faster in higher resolution full screen modes than the thin client because all of the graphics are cached locally, with the thin client the server sends a full screen refresh to the client, the more pixels the longer this takes.

I use the thin client running the ppc low res screens on the desktop in my office as it runs nice and quickly, I personally dont much like the slight delay when running at 800*600 or above.

The xnet part allows the fat client to have a zone attached to it which is then seen by the server and appears as an extra zone. This can be synced but I haven't played with it much to know how well it works.

Synced play from the servers zones works reasonably well most of the time but obviously gets more flakey as things get more complicated, higher overheads etc. This will only improve with time as Steven adds stabilty as when he has time to tweak the code.

I recently made a change from 2* maudio delta 410's to the rme steup in my sig to largly to see if it improved synced play making the assumption that with all zones running from 1 pci slot should be better than the 2 pci slot maudio approach becasue the sync will nnot have to work across the bus. The result, maybe a marginal improvement (but I would think that for what the upgrade cost, certainly a smoother sound) but really not much in it certainly as far as sync stability is concerned.

On a personal note I went to a smarthome show yesterday and multiroom audio seemed to be the "hot" thing, damn expensive though compared to this approach and nowhere near as flexible. Hardware is the route if you want absolute stabilty now. Remeber that xlobby is free and a labour of love.

[hjackson]

"BTW... the fat client seems almost pointless then does it not, if all your media lives on a separate server (that is, there is no media to be controlled on the fat client PC) ?"

No. Depending on your setup, the fat client is not pointless. If you use Xlobby on the TV in the family room, and you also have seperate inwall speakers for zone music (not for the TV) and the speaker wire runs start in the hometheater where the audio Xlobby server PC is...whew... like my house... then you would use a fat client not a thin client. With the fat client, the Xlobby PC controls the TV and other equipment in the familly room, but would not be able to control the inwall music (non TV) speakers since their wiring originates in a different zone (the hometheater). With the fat client mode in the familly room, the full Xlobby install allows you to control the TV and equipment, and the fat client feature allows you to control the audio from the other zone so you can hear music from the inwall speakers. If you only had a thin client to the hometheater Xlobby server, then you wouldn't be able to control the TV (typically...) and if you had the thin client to the TV Xlobby server, then you wouldn't be able to control the music to your inwalls (typically...)
I hope that wasn't too complicated...

hjackson
PS Because Girder allows you to do anything, I had to say "typically"...

[Chazotta]

Ok, I think I understand the differences now.

What I'm thinking of doing (for the meantime until XNET is more stable/reliable), is running four zones off the server with outputs from the sound card(s) being fed into the respective PC soundcard input within each zone, in combination with each zone having a PC with full xlobby running with its own 'local' zone created for non-synched playback.

I thought maybe having the outputs from the server audio card(s) feed the input of the relevant zone's audio card was better than the outputs feeding the preamp/amp of the zone, that way I don't have to change/select inputs on the preamp within every zone.

I thought overall this might be better as it might not be as intensive on the main servers resources (for instance if you had 3 zones playing there own music. Would you envisage any problems with this approach ? Maybe it is a waste of time and I should just run the typical fat client in each zone and not worry about a 'local' zone controlled by xlobby in each zone. I guess this method is using multiple servers ? A server in each zone, giving local zone control but the main server gives the option of providing audio and control to any and all zones, in synch.


regards


btw, can you run a full version of Xlobby on a given PC simultaneously with a thin client (ie: thereby giving you local server control and main server control respectively) ?

[rhinoman]

I think that you are over complicating it.

Yes you can run a thin and fat client at the same time on a client machine but I dont see why you would want to. The fat client will control both the local zone and the server zones.

I shouldn't worry to much about which works best now, the stability will be achieved, Steven is working on it, post any problems as bugs in the bugs section of the forum.

The main point of a fat client is to allow control of local zones from any other machine, whether it be a server or a client on the network. If the zones are all local to the server, then the fat client works as a faster/snappier control than the thin client but takes more resources. Fine on a desktop machine. The main use of the thin client is for ppc/simpad/win-ce devices that do not run the full version of windows.