Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Docker Foobar200 image (Read 3502 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Docker Foobar200 image

Is there anyone who can enlighten me why Foobar2000 in a Docker container on a NAS is not a good idea?

I would like cogent reasons, so please no administrators need reply.

Re: Docker Foobar200 image

Reply #1 –
Okay, I won't repeat my answer from the other topic about this being a stupid idea. Or the reasons why it's a stupid idea.

Re: Docker Foobar200 image

Reply #2 –
I'm not an admin. Dockerizing foobar2000 is a stupid idea.
¡Se habla español! Also available in purple and orange.

Re: Docker Foobar200 image

Reply #3 –
The previous thread mentioned was flat out wrong about some Synology being fully capable of running Docker. Other than that there was no reason given, just an opinion.

It would be good to have some advice from smarter people who can actually give a REASON behind why they trash the idea.

Re: Docker Foobar200 image

Reply #4 –
Quote from: kode54 on
Or the reasons why it's a stupid idea.

That just opens up an exponentially huge can of worms, many of which involve potential alternate input components to deal with all the cans of worms the subject involves.

Many of which said cans fall under and violate the TOS to hell and back.

Needless: its an exponentially stupid idea.

Re: Docker Foobar200 image

Reply #5 –
mudlord, thank you for the reply.

Just to clarify, by potential alternate input components to deal with do you mean regarding foobar2000 or regarding Docker or the NAS?

Also, when you mention violating the TOS does that mean any use on Macs by way of Wine or Winebottler are violations?

Re: Docker Foobar200 image

Reply #6 –
Windows or its background processes do not cause jitter. Jitter is a problem in DAC clock, software can't affect it. If your system was so stressed that its buffers ran out of data you would get much louder pops or pauses in audio playback.

Your NAS also has background processes running. If you were to run foobar2000 in a Docker container your NAS would need to additionally emulate or simulate Windows. It would be much more work for a poor NAS processor to do that than it would be for your Windows PC to run it natively. If that extra processing could actually cause jitter, you'd only have more of it.

It's not a good idea because the reasons you are trying to do it are incorrect and actually doing it would not solve anything.

Re: Docker Foobar200 image

Reply #7 –
As an aside, the TOS puts forth no policy whatsoever on whether one should stick to existing threads or start a new one after N days.
If admins want to enforce a rule, then make it a rule rather than putting forth arbitrary principles made up on the spot.

But heck, the wording of TOS#8 even outlaws the statement "192/24 sounds no worse than 352.8/32", and nobody bothers to correct it.

Re: Docker Foobar200 image

Reply #8 –
Thank you Case and Porcus. Now I am starting to learn something.

Case, what do you think of these two software packages; Audio Optimizer and Fidelizer Pro? I do not own them but found them referred to in some other discussions. They are supposed to shut down extraneous processes in a Windows based music server to reduce jitter. Are they snake oil in your opinion?

Re: Docker Foobar200 image

Reply #9 –
Quote from: Tom Sea on
are supposed to shut down extraneous processes in a Windows based music server to reduce jitter. Are they snake oil

Just assume jitter eating software to be snake oil.

Audio blogger Archimago does some interesting measurements. Here is one: https://archimago.blogspot.com/2013/03/measurements-hunt-for-load-induced.html

If you have audio drop-outs, you might have problems with processes running at too high priority (sometimes with nothing sensible to do about it), but that isn't jitter. (I had a laptop's battery controller make block the USB-audio out for long enough ... disabled it, and sure fine, but that would kill the battery in no time.)

Re: Docker Foobar200 image

Reply #11 –
Quote from: Tom Sea on
Case, what do you think of these two software packages; Audio Optimizer and Fidelizer Pro? I do not own them but found them referred to in some other discussions. They are supposed to shut down extraneous processes in a Windows based music server to reduce jitter. Are they snake oil in your opinion?
They might in theory work on some machine, but not the way the authors describe. There are known cases of harware monitoring tools and broken drivers causing DPC latency issues that make realtime audio playback glitchy. If these tools happened to close whatever process or driver was responsible for the issue then they would introduce an actual improvement in sound. But if one suffers from this problem the solution is not to buy these expensive tools but to uninstall the bad software / find the broken driver and update or disable it.

As Porcus' link showed, extra process activity does not cause extra jitter.

Re: Docker Foobar200 image

Reply #12 –
Porcus' link shows information from March 2013. A slightly differing view from the Netherlands is found at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTRvc7pfddg&list=PLMbsmejHnP8GxFbgS5E2EXWLOLptcXNg-&index=3

Hans is a longstanding audio writer. That particular video is rather discouraging of using a computer for audiophile work. My original inquiry regarding Docker containers for foobar2000 was based upon the idea of using the NAS as a "light" computer as the video describes, with tagging and cataloging being handled on a different beast.

There are many ways to skin this cat. I just can't afford to be separated from too much money in the process.

Re: Docker Foobar200 image

Reply #13 –
Do you actually have a problem with sound? Audio really isn't that complex. Some 20 years ago built-in motherboard audio was rather poor and you could hear electronic noise from analog outputs when you moved a mouse. I haven't run into these kinds of issues in a long time.

But if you don't have clean output from your machine it's easy to fix with an external USB DAC. Check some objective reviews that measure the outputs, you will find that excellent fidelity doesn't cost much.

Re: Docker Foobar200 image

Reply #14 –
Quote from: Tom Sea on
Hans is a longstanding audio writer.
I recognized that name and face, and not for the good. He advocates 192 kHz for end-user format out of his willful ignorance of audio. Someone at audiosciencereview posted this screenshot for public ridicule:



Let's see ... we know bat sounds can reach up to 250 kHz, that is more than three octaves over what any human ear has ever heard. How do we know it then? Because we can measure it. (Of course, because the equipment can handle and process sounds way beyond human hearing, we can also play it back at 1/32th speed so you can hear it.)

If it looks like a quack, quacks like a quack, and ducks like a quack, it probably is a quack.

Re: Docker Foobar200 image

Reply #15 –
Thank you. This was news to me.  :-[

Re: Docker Foobar200 image

Reply #16 –
Quote from: Porcus on
Let's see ... we know bat sounds can reach up to 250 kHz, that is more than three octaves over what any human ear has ever heard. How do we know it then? Because we can measure it. (Of course, because the equipment can handle and process sounds way beyond human hearing, we can also play it back at 1/32th speed so you can hear it.)

Weak humans

Re: Docker Foobar200 image

Reply #17 –
I went over to audiosciencereview to read what they say about Hans. One thread was a very good, rational discussion. It did not just say he was a idiot. Instead they said how and why they disagreed with him. One point they made was to ask the question why Hans has such a following. I would like to throw in my two or three cents worth:

1. His you tube videos have good production values. By that I mean that his video is in focus, when he shows graphics they are clear, and most importantly his audio is good. It should be obvious but when you are talking about audio it is more convincing if your sound quality is good. There was a video refuting Hans' claims about switches and this particular video had a thin uneven sound that was not simply attributable to the speaker's voice.

2. In his videos he seems to be talking about ideas. There is no name calling, which is the first turn off to someone interested in facts and data. Although some of the jargon he uses require extra research, his talks do not seem like a secret boys club with secret handshakes, nudge-nudge, wink-wink. If I am trying to learn something, saying things in shorthand is not convincing.

3. He has a lot of videos. If we have learned anything over the past few years it is that if you repeat things over and over and over and over, over time those things seem to become true whether they are or not. So far, I have not found an audiosciencereview type you tube channel that has multiple content.

So, as someone who is just getting back into audio by way of digitizing my thousands of CDs, people like Hans have gotten attention for better or worse.

Re: Docker Foobar200 image

Reply #18 –
HA is for *objective, science based* discussion of audio.

Not psuedoscience waffle like jitter, and buffering whole files/playlists into memory to try to sidestep issues from harddrives, and other BS like that which some other audio players bloody peddle for profit.

Re: Docker Foobar200 image

Reply #19 –
Quote from: Tom Sea on
Porcus' link shows information from March 2013. A slightly differing view from the Netherlands is found at:

There are many ways to skin this cat. I just can't afford to be separated from too much money in the process.
I just watched this Hans video from 2018.  It is rather painful to watch.  The one part that I agree with is using an external DAC, and from there we diverge.  The PC EMI noise can generate electrical noise that will come out of the DAC over USB, or come from your PSU, and you'll hear it as a hiss in the background, elevating the noise floor.  The simplest solution is to isolate your DAC from PC power supplied over USB, unless the DAC has a galvanic filter circuit that will do this for you.  An isolating dongle cuts off the USB power pin, and offers you to connect an external 5V USB power source, or use a self-powered DAC.

With the DAC isolated from PC power, you no longer have any electrical noise  concerns using USB.  You can use something like the iFi iDefender, and is a lot cheaper than using multiple machines, NAS connections, streaming software, and other options that Hans has suggested.

Using toslink also isolates the DAC, but I prefer USB, so I use the dongle I mentioned, and my noise floor is nice and clean.  :)

It's also possible that you can use a self-powered USB hub, if it isolates from PC supplied power over it's connections.
In Case Of Bose, Break Glass
Flac yuo in teh ASIO!
 

Re: Docker Foobar200 image

Reply #20 –
Quote from: Chastity on
Using toslink also isolates the DAC, but I prefer USB, so I use the dongle I mentioned, and my noise floor is nice and clean.  :)

There are USB-audio devices with toslink out. I have a few USB-audio devices, including one of those M-Audio thingies with the "Transit" name on it, and since my (active) speakers only accept SPDIF coax, I would use a converter on that.

There was an era when many (most, I think?) consumer-grade motherboards would have toslink out, but rarely coax - for all that I know, that may still be the case.
I can understand why - there were lots of noisy things going on onboard a computer, and I have (/have had) PC/USB-to-SPDIF combinations that spit enough noise over the coax for an annoyingly audible hiss.


Quote from: Tom Sea on
and most importantly his audio is good. It should be obvious but when you are talking about audio it is more convincing if your sound quality is good.

Hard to disagree on that ...

Re: Docker Foobar200 image

Reply #21 –
Originally I was interested in running foobar2000 in a Docker container on my NAS. Several people said that it was a foolish idea.

What is the opinion on running Logitech Media Server in a Docker container on a NAS?

Re: Docker Foobar200 image

Reply #22 –
Anyone? Anyone?


Beuller?

Re: Docker Foobar200 image

Reply #23 –
So I have managed to run Foobar2000 via a wine docker container on my openmediavault install.  I''m not playing audio directly out of the machine but am using foo_upnp to stream my music collection to other devices in the house.  Key reason for sticking with foobar is that it is the only software I have found that will support cue sheets and my custom tags to split out my library the way I do on my desktop. 

The docker container I'm using is the following wine container: https://github.com/solarkennedy/wine-x11-novnc-docker