uPnP versus UPnP AV

[iondjp22]

Hi All;

I've been using the free version of Asset my older Windows Home Server (WHS) V1 box but I am now considering purchasing the Premium edition for the additional features. Doing some homework, I read an excellent and informative article on uPnP and DLNA. Pleased to report the author has some very complimentary things to say about illustrate Asset.

(Credit where credit is due so here is the link - http://www.computeraudiophile.com/co...network-audio/)

Anyway, this raised the question, "Is Asset compliant with the newer uPnP AV architecture (or protocol)?"

I am particularly interested in the following comments by the author.

"A main goal of UPnP AV is interoperability between controllers and AV devices. For example enabling audio to flow from a NAS to an audio playback device without intervention from a controller."

I often use an Android device as the controller and stream music from my server to a uPnP device (HK Receiver, TV, or Media Player) located near my main HiFi system. However, sometimes I have issues with renderer dropouts and freeze ups. It seems to me this 'feature' of uPNP AV might be beneficial in alleviating some of these issues. Logically sending data directly from the server to the renderer would be far more efficient. Especially for a home network built around a modest residential grade NetGear router with half a dozen devices connected by Ethernet and WiFi.

Comments?

[Spoon]

Re: uPnP versus UPnP AV

The renderer is the player, so if it freezes or drops out (because of network issues) there is nothing any different standard could do to help.

[iondjp22]

Re: uPnP versus UPnP AV

Thanks Spoon. My inference from your comment is that Asset does not support 'uPnP AV'. Correct?

If so, that's fine. But please help me to understand this better.

It is my sense that the flow of data in an 'older' uPnP setup is basically as follows (without too much detail):
1. After the controller, the media player, and the server have agreed on formats and technical aspects, the server then sends the data (i.e. - mp3 file) to the controller over the WiFi network. In my case this would be 1)an android device running BubbleUPnP, 2)the HK receiver acting as a media renderer, and 3)an Asset Server running on WHS.
2. The controller on the android device buffers the incoming data and in turn forwards it to the player over WiFi as well.
3. Any break in this chain of data flow (IOW: the controller is no longer in range of the network) will stop the music from flowing between the server and the player.

Is this essentially correct?

Assuming that I have understood the above correctly, I then assume that the difference with UPnP AV is:
1. Once the controller has setup the music and has informed the server which player to send the data file to, the server sends that data directly to the player.
2. At that point the controller is there to provide functions to the player (stop, rewind, etc) but does not actually receive & forward the data stream.
3. If the controller leaves the network range, the music file will continue to flow from the server to the player.

Is this essentially true?

And finally, to satisfy my own curiosity, would you agree with my assumption about improved bandwidth efficiency(at least for that part)? I suppose, it would seem there would need to be more 'control' and 'status monitoring' over the network in a UPnP AV system, so maybe that minimizes the efficiency. am I on track?

Thanks

[Spoon]

Re: uPnP versus UPnP AV

Yes it does support UPnP AV, which is actually an old standard from 2006, everything UPnP related should support that as it is 8 years old.

UPnP has never sent the data through the control point as you describe, the control point only browses a server and tells the player what to play, the player will go direct to the server to fetch the data, it always has done from the beginning of upnp.

[iondjp22]

Re: uPnP versus UPnP AV

Thanks for the clarification and the tutorial.

Cheers