In article , Bob Latham
wrote:

However, if you have several manufacturers machines that work fine from
a given NAS and UPnP server and another company who's machine does not
work with either the NAS or the UPnP server then I think it far more
likely the problem lies with the player and/or the control software
running on a tablet/phone.

A problem is that one or more large organisations may "define darkness to
be the new standard meaning of light". Its the kind of thing that MS,
Apple, etc, etc, do to try and get everyone to use *their* software (or
hardware) "because it works correctly" - when in fact it breaks with an
otherwise-agreed standard. [1]

Then something like a player may not work because it *does* follow agreed
standards, but the user doesn't know this.

The history of HTML and web-browsers is littered with examples where people
start thinking their browser isn't working properly for such reasons.


Certainly, under a some do some don't situation, the "don't"
manufacturer could join the "do" group even if that means implementing a
spec 'addition'. I might argue that it is remiss of them if they don't.

The above may mean they have to deal with an ambiguous situation, so they
can't always win. Or may mean paying to join a club.

I have no idea if any of the above *is* relevant in this particular case.
But it is a reason for being careful about assigning 'blame' when different
items or software fail to work together nicely, when others seem fine.

[snip]


That is why I have no understanding of a gapless track. The intended
silence is part of the track, there is no gap.

Sorry we may be talking at cross purposes here.

I don't understand why you think that.

I wasn't sure if we were, so thought it best to allow for that. From your
response I think it was OK.

Jim

[1] Its an extension of the way MS do something like fail for ages to
impliment agreed standards like those for USB Audio Class 2 devices so such
devices "just work", forcing users to install a 'driver' - whilst Mac /
Linux / RO users can use the devices because they connect using the same
common open standard.

Note that MS participated in the committee meetings that laid down the
standards *years* ago. But then didn't include them in their standard OSs
when others did, and many devices adopted them. You can speculate on if
this is lazyness, incompetence, etc. But it enhances the chance that some
device makers simply then won't bother with adopting the standard... and
thus produce devices that *only* work with the current version of Windows.
....Which might suit MS nicely.

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html