NASLite Network Attached Storage

Hi,

in the past I had NL-SMBG running on my old PC. All of my music files were store there in a dedicated music-directory on that NAS. In the iTunes-settings I assigned that directory as iTunes-music-folder where the program organizes the media content. As a result it showed a Music-Library in the front panel where I could play the songs from.

Everything ok so far.

Now, I switched to naslite-M2 and after some trouble with a corrupted m4p-file I got the daap-service running stable. It shows up in itunes as shared library. I still have the same settings as before regrading the music-folder because I want iTunes to automatically add new content to that directory.

For me, everything seems to be the same as before. So, here are my questions:

1. Can anyone tell me what the difference is now? Does iTunes now play songs by making use of the NL-daap service or does it still use the old existing music-library from the nas-file-share?
2. can I change the default playlists from the daap-service somehow? Can I add new playlists there?
3. In case I setup a second PC with iTunes. What will it see? In a first place the daap-service and an empty music-library? What if I start playing songs there? As I will setup the second PC in the same way (itunes shall organize the files in the same folder on the nas as the first PC) will it try to copy the initially played songs from the daap server to the itunes-folder? This will cause double files there... or not?
4. what about the playlists on my first PC? Are they recognized by the daap? Or can I create them in the daap somehow so that these playlists can be modified also from the second PC? I would not like to do the same work twice and maintain the playlists individually on each PC. Of course I can share the library of my first PC within the local network. But then everything will by organized between the individual itunes-PC, right? What is the purpose of a daap-service then there?

Sorry, I'm totally confused and can't find answers in the internet to these questions. Currently, I absolute do not understand what advantages I might have with the daap service.
Without, I could play the files from the nas-share. And I would also be able to share the playlists from one iTunes-PC to others in the local network... so, why daap?

Thx,
Heiko

It seems all the answers are here, or referred from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Audio_Access_Protocol

Happy reading!

Peter, thanks a lot for the reply. Unfortunaly, I've already red all of this before
Well, I understand what daap does. But, my questions from the first post still remain.
I cannot figure out the difference between the two situations: having a daap server or telling iTunes to use a directory on a shared network drive as media library. iTunes get's the songs from there. Where is the difference? I even cannot tell if iTunes does something different then before without the daap server. The only difference I recognize is that the daap server is recognized and shown within iTunes... but... what for??? It's not faster, not more stable... just some additional playlists which I cannot edit within iTunes and that seem useless to me because some of them I already have and the others I do not need...
Would it make a difference to remove the iTunes folder in the settings? But then iTunes will not know anymore where to copy newly played media to, isn't it?
Did I miss anything in the daap-documentation?
Or is it just that simple, if someone like me uses iTunes there is simply no need for a daap server? But then, why did Apple invent that stuff ...?
One thing I could understand and would appreciate is to be able to edit the daap-playlists in an easy way within iTunes. Then these playlists would be identical for all PCs in my local network. But, this seems not to be the case. Secondly, because iTunes can get the files to be played directly from the network share, it does not need any daap server to play songs. correct?
Sorry, I'm lost

Apple sucks. Their toys suck, their service sucks and it's way too expensive. To answer your question: Apple's business model is making the world dependent on Apple. Basically like a crack dealer. So DAAP is one of the tools. Like the fact that you need Itunes for your Iphone. Like you need their app store - their control of it!

It is an incredible business story. To create a huge circle of dependent and proud users - the word arrogant comes to mind - in a free world with so much more to choose from is an achievement comparable to the way the regime of the former DDR sold the coughing Trabant as a luxery car. So far my rant.

To really get an answer, make your messages shorter, edit them nicely, and ask questions you really need to ask. An avalanche does not work. Not here, or in any other forum.

HTH

Ok, let's begin with this one:

Is there any advantage in using the mt-daapd when I have just iTunes PCs (no other clients) running in my home-network which also could use the media library directly from a network share?

Not to my thinking there isn't. I personally just access the shares directly from which ever PC or Mac I am at. I see little need for the indexing complications this daemon brings to the table. There are just to many issues for my liking. I am the kind of guy that used Winamp and the indexing it brought to the table and that was about the limit for me. I hate iTunes and never use it.

Mike

I once installed iTunes, for reasons stated above. I got rid of it almost instantaneously. Locally I use MediaMonkey, an excellent piece of software. For streaming I use an incredible program called Subsonic For a limited time you'll have access to my music, just to check this miracle out. Click: http://83.84.141.237:9988/subsonic/index.view User: NASLite Password: Guest

It plays from my NASlite server (which -BTW- has a very low transfer rate, about 10 Mb/sec... why would THAT be?) streaming thru my XP workstation. On the server is a collection WMA Lossless cd's. on the fly decoded as 320 kbps MP3's, if bandwidth is sufficient, that is.

Enjoy!

> Don't know if there can be multiple login's with the same name/password.....

Yes, I'm also getting this impression.


I also had Winamp in the past. It was ok, but it had no possibility to ripp or burn CDs, so I quit using it.

Then I recently tested songbird but came to the conclusion that it's much (!!!) slower than iTunes (especially compared to iT 9) and I was not able to figure out how to import the song ratings and playlists from iTunes. Honestly, the slow speed (especially at program start) was the knock-out criterion.

So, for me iTunes does everything that I want. Of course it had (and still has) insufficiencies but it get's better with every new version... so, it's not perfect but it does the job I want. I just quit using the store because my car-CD-player does not play aac and it really sucks that iTunes is not able to temporarily convert aac to mp3 just for CD burning... but ok, Amazon integrates very well into the iTunes library... so what...

Check out MediaMonkey: http://www.mediamonkey.com/ Everything you always wanted. It even syncs with iPods & iPhones.... It has support for about every format you can find.

Talking about formats, a very useful & versatile program (Windows Platform) is Easy CD-DA Extractor http://www.poikosoft.com/ 'the Swiss Army Knife Of Digital Audio'

I had Nero burning ROM and there was an add on for it that gave you an encoder, Fraunhofer that is, for only $20.00 USD. For those not in the know, they are the guys that did the perceptual encoding basics in the start and it is still one of thee best out there bar none. I know because I compared about 12 encoders at the time to see which one was the best. The encoder is full featured allowing absolute control of the encode. I don't know if they still offer it or not but if they do I can not recommend it enough. iTunes locks you into their morass of a mess for ripping and encoding, not my thing.

Mike

If ripping on the PC, I would strongly suggest using Exact Audio Copy.

If your desired resultant filetype is MP3 then I would suggest using the LAME codec (latest v3.98).

Both are freeware.

Isn't that funny. All those different opinions. I have a very good ear and after quite a bit of testing I am sure that .wma lossless is the best format to rip to hard drive - if you have the storage, because with bit rates up to 1152 kbps, you need a lot. Sometimes really good stuff comes from Redmond.

Lossless is lossless, end of story. WMA.Lossless is no better than FLAC, WavPack, TAK, ALAC, etc.

In terms of hardware compatibility (other than iPod and (sort of) Zune), the most useful lossless codec is undoubtedly FLAC.

I rest my case.
HAND

What case would that be? Different opinions - absolutely.

.... but when you advocate the use of a proprietary codec with very limited support (other than Microsoft hardware / software) I feel that that cannot be left uncorrected.