Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blackcandy: Self hosted music streaming server

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 311 posts

Re: Blackcandy: Self hosted music streaming server

#221

Post by aftbit »

tosser2084 wrote: post #215

Why would I do this over a Synology DiskStation which allows me a hassle-free way to stream my music anywhere I have a internet connection... I use it daily in my car without a problem, going on my 3rd DSM and ~10 years of this setup.

For me, the reason is that Synology is not open source, and additionally because their NASes are overpriced for their size and capabilities. I have a 12 disk NAS that cost me a total of $500 (before drives), with no software licensing fees at all, and that's not even an especially cheap one. My earlier NAS was slower but only $120. Of course, it needs a deep 19" rack to mount, but that's actually an advantage for me, as I have a dedicated homelab rack to play with.

Re: Blackcandy: Self hosted music streaming server

#222

Post by kaleinator »

What's the benefit in using a "self hosted streaming server", when I can just mount a network share and connect to a personal VPN when I'm out and about? This is what I've been doing for awhile and I've had zero issues. As far as I can tell it's secure.

Is it just to allow others to use the server with login credentials?

Re: Blackcandy: Self hosted music streaming server

#223

Post by Kerbonut »

63stack wrote: post #210
vlovich123 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just have a main page on a single domain that has links to all the services? That way you only need to remember one domain name.

Easier to wire up services to each other with domain names, serviceA.domain.tld is obvious, domain.tld:1234 is not

There is also path based, e.g. domain.tld/serviceA, domain.tld/serviceB

Re: Blackcandy: Self hosted music streaming server

#224

Post by cess11 »

Kerbonut wrote: post #223
63stack wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easier to wire up services to each other with domain names, serviceA.domain.tld is obvious, domain.tld:1234 is not

There is also path based, e.g. domain.tld/serviceA, domain.tld/serviceB

Won't work for many services, either they do some websocket stuff or they make assumptions about the URL or whatever. Subdomains are the way to go.

Re: Blackcandy: Self hosted music streaming server

#225

Post by sshagent »

RadiozRadioz wrote: post #101
sshagent wrote: post #27

I'm currently using icecast and ices to host a music stream. It'll effectively stream music to a port, and multiple clients can enjoy. Anyone doing something similar, I'd like to migrate to something more modern.

Snapcast is similar, but will keep all the clients in sync for multi-room audio https://github.com/badaix/snapcast

That's actually something I've always wanted. Thanks, I'll take a look

Re: Blackcandy: Self hosted music streaming server

#226

Post by pimeys »

kaleinator wrote: post #222

What's the benefit in using a "self hosted streaming server", when I can just mount a network share and connect to a personal VPN when I'm out and about? This is what I've been doing for awhile and I've had zero issues. As far as I can tell it's secure. Is it just to allow others to use the server with login credentials?

I find it easier to stream music from my phone, especially with a slow uplink and the real time encoding to a lossy format with the servers.

Re: Blackcandy: Self hosted music streaming server

#227

Post by paxys »

I have tried every music playing option under the sun for the last 15 years and am now happily back to creating playlists on my computer and periodically dragging them to my phone's local storage. There is still no better overall experience.

Re: Blackcandy: Self hosted music streaming server

#229

Post by retrodaredevil »

at_a_remove wrote: post #89
retrodaredevil wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most self-hosted services metadata is only as good as the metadata on your audio files. I think using something like MusicBrainz Picard or beets to tag your media well is required, along with making sure that all files of a given album are in the same folder. (Plex has what seems like strict file naming conventions for music, but really all you need to do is make sure each album has all its files in one folder). If y…

So here is my question, or one of them, as someone starting this whole journey: exactly what metadata do you want outside of artist, song title, album title? Because I can see there's a lot to be had. Embedded album covers, subgenre tagging, synchronized lyrics ... hyperlinks to Discogs and MusicBrainz, maybe? Tempo in BPM? Key? ID3v2.3 or IDv2.4? Can you even do that to FLAC? And where do you get that metadata, usin…

The cool thing about MusicBrainz Picard is that it puts not only an ISRC metadata tag on each file, but also a UUID for the MusicBrainz recording and for the MusicBrainz album id.

The idea here is that if you use something like MusicBrainz, you can actually retag all of your files in bulk if necessary because MusicBrainz Picard knows exactly what release each file belongs to. You can then configure MusicBrainz Picard to tag your files to your liking. It's a really great piece of software.

If you are tagging files manually, I think an ISRC tag is the bare minimum because it can allowed automations like MusicBrainz Picard to easily identify what each file is.

As for what version of ID3 or ID2, I'm not sure. It might depend on the software you use to play the audio files. The reason I personally use MusicBrainz Picard is because its MusicBrainz specific metadata is read directly by Plex, so even if the other metadata on the file is bad for some reason, Plex will match the MusicBrainz tagging with the correct release. I mean, Plex uses MusicBrainz internally for its metadata, so it's a safe bet for my purposes.

Re: Blackcandy: Self hosted music streaming server

#230

Post by taneliv »

antihero wrote: post #159
nycdatasci wrote: post #156

I'm probably missing something. Why self-host when for $10/mo. you can access a nearly unlimited catalog of music on Spotify with integration on phone, PC, car, Sonos, etc?

Because: * You don't have any control, if some paperwork fucks up you can lose access (rarer with music but very common with video services) * They don't have a lot of rare stuff, demos, EPs, singles, dubplates, etc. * You can't choose which version of an album you want. * If you run out of money for whatever reason you can't listen to music. * Offline is unreliable. * Screw having my taste and discovery defined by a…

You forgot disappearing music. Add a song to a playlist, switch countries (or who knows what), it becomes greyed out, or perhaps simply removed. Annoying.

Their tendency to add random music to my playlists is annoying. I think there's some control over it, but I'm too old to follow up on how it works this week.

I'm on the most expensive family plan they have, but would pay more to get those two fixed properly.

I do still buy music on albums and digitally, mostly as a backup exactly for the reasons you mention. But I can't afford to do that for everything I listen to.

Post reply on HN