Zararadio - How to use more istances

Using version 1.6.1 I am able to open two instances and load different play lists to each. I cannot try multiple sound cards to check if that works.

Are you able to start multiple instances without playing? If not, maybe it has something to do with the version you use or maybe with the configuration files.

Check back since there are some real experts on Zara use here who can probably give you a better answer.

Neil

Hi Darlo  1968,

Before talking about multiple instances of Zara (V 1.6.2), did you know you can feed playlists to five separate radio stations from ONE instance of Zara?

The Main Playlist is Station # 1, then (see Page 41) the FOUR Auxiliary Players can each feed FOUR MORE radio stations.

Thing is, you'll either need enough sound cards so that actual audio outputs are available for monitoring each station

OR

You can use Virtual Cable to create audio lines to five separate Encoders which are tied to as many Radio Servers.

ON THE OTHER HAND

Goto Page 11 and see GENERAL OPTIONS where choice three is ALLOW OPENING MORE THAN ONE INSTANCE.

You will note that choice four is DISABLE THE EVENTS IN SECONDARY INSTANCES, and EVENTS are audiofiles that activate on schedule. Perhaps someone with experience can explain what that's all about.

It'll be fun!

I already a Virtual Cable istance and it's repeater to send audio to the encoder and feed my Spitfire transmitter.

In the past I also tested the AUX players in Zara but my idea is manage 2 different stations with scheduled events and so on...

Did we give you enough information so that you can try running two instances of Zara complete with events?

I am guessing that it should work just fine, but if it doesn't, describe to us what the problems are so that maybe we can think of a solution.

A few years ago I ran two instances of Winamp with Encoder Plugins and two Shoutcast Server Instances, and was able to operate two separate streaming radio stations from one computer.

What version of Zara are you running?

I wouldn't recommend it.

Playing around with multiple instances is one thing, but running them in production is another.  I like to keep things simple.

I've run into occasional stuttering problems with Zara, even on reasonably powerful PC's.  You need to run it at a slightly higher priority than Normal to avoid that.  I don't know what running multiple instances at a higher priority would do over the long haul.

Why not just run 2 PC's with a KVM switch to allow you to move between PC's with the touch of a button (or key)?

Dario, I'm going to have to join the chorus of folks suggesting you not run more than one station off the same computer.

My reasons:

1) "Second computers" capable of running Zara are unbelievably cheap right now. A used computer store near me (PC Retro) is pushing the last of its single-core machines out the door for dirt.

2) Win XP support goes away in under 4 months. If a bug hits the one machine you have that's driving all your stations (and its running XP), all get knocked off the air at once with not much chance of recovery after April 2014.

3) Upgrade anyway. Windows 7 will be supported for some time to come, and Zara can run in XP-emulation mode.

4) A second machine protecting your library. How much music is on your drives? If it goes kaboom, will your audio inventory be safe? Copy everything to a second box (or a large USB stick) and protect it all.

My opinion only. Let us know what you decide to do.

I agree with Artisan and Annandale except for one doubt I have...

I have heard complaints from many stations about unfriendly audio characteristics of Windows 7, and have been told that other versions of Windows are even worse for audio. But we are being pushed away from XP, which has tended to work well enough to have a "safe" feel. Poor us.

I would also add that for a business radio station we should protect each client as much as possible, and several dedicated computers is more secure than one computer which can put everybody off the air.

My station was crippled over Christmas because the CD Drive failed and that meant I couldn't run network programs that are shipped to me on disk. It took two days to fix.

A second computer would have kept me going.

XP doesn't support multiple cores in dual and greater core CPU's - that it itself is one good reason to move to at least Vista or beyond.  I had 2 identical computers, both dual core, one running XP and one running Vista.  Even though Vista is reputedly a 'pig' when it comes to resources, that system easily outpaced the XP one, because it was able to take advantage of the multiple cores.

Pay attention to Artisan. I have learned a kot from him. And, also, of course, from many other Part 15 Members.

The latest piece of knowledge being added to my head is the thing about "CORES."

I have a Dual-Core CPU and have taken on faith that it is doing something, but I have XP, and now learn that the second core is on a side-track doing nothing.

That's good to know. I'd rather not operate on false imagination, like believing that those two cores are blazing trails. There is only one trail and no blaze.

What else can you tell us about things, Artisan, MrNaturalAZ, MRAM 1500, Radio8Z, Rich, MICRODogStudio2, Johny C. Ragland FM, and your name here?

No rush. I'll keep checking. The knowledge will be dished out.

Actually, I wasn't entirely correct.  Service Pack 2 for XP added multiple core support, but you have to do a few things to get it to work correctly.  Chances are if you just upgraded to SP2 you're only running with 1 core.

I gave up on XP a long time ago, Vista, Windows 7, etc. support dual core right out of the gate.

At the risk of going just a bit off topic I add the following since we are talking about computers and radio station apps.

Windows XP with SP3 will run multicore (at least two) if the applications support this. One way to check is to open Windows Task Manager (CTRL-ALT-DELETE sumultaneously) and click on the Performance tab. Click on View and select CPU History and One Graph per CPU. There is a graph on the left labelled CPU History which shows the total CPU Usage for all cores but on the right at the top are two graphs showing the CPU Usage for each core.

On some applications only one core will show activity and on others both cores will show activity.

I use a program called Video-Re-Do Plus to edit and process video files and both cores show full usage with this. Some of the older programs for video and audio show only one core active.

The big problem for me going from XP to Win7 is that XP allows the applications to directly control the hardware drivers where Win7 does not and requires hardware driver calls to be made through Win7. For most things this won't be a problem but for some hardware it is. For example, I use a PCI1200 A/D card which works fine with XP but not at all with Win7. Even under XP compatibility mode Win7 forces the driver calls through Win7 and in my case since the card is rather old there are no drivers available to use it under Win7.

The other nastiness of Win7 over XP is that Win7 will not allow loop-back of output audio to audio input under software control. This can be worked around with patch cables but it is nicer to have the software do it. Some mixers used with XP won't allow this but the older versions of sndvol (the mixer) will.

There are a lot of very nice features added to Win7 but there are some gotchas if you are using older hardware. Another gotcha I experienced was Win7 has replaced Outlook Express with another incompatible email program and I do not want to go to the trouble of converting my addresses and archives to the new program.

Since XP does what I want I decided to stay with it. I am not concerned with the termination of support since it works and I haven't applied any updates in over a year with no problems. I just avoid using Internet Explorer for web stuff so security updates are not needed. Windows Security Essentials and updated Firefox browser have prevented any virus or malware problems. There may be vulnerabilities but thus far no problems.

Neil

What I see happening on the commercial computer front (Microsoft is a commercial entity, not your friend) is a squeezing out of the individual entrepreneur. The objective is to put small operators in the position of having to pay for high priced "professional level" access to internet tools. Tinkering and inventing is almost a crime.

My XP has not had any updates in over a year, so I assume support is already gone.

The other day I went in the Windows Update site and requested that it "Check for updates" and it went into an infinite "Sweeping Gauge" which I finally interrupted after an hour because nothing was happening.

We must take to the streets!

If you keep your XP machine off the Internet and away from any untested USB Flash RAM sticks, you should be immune to any vulnerability attacks from outside that could cripple your computer/radio stations. It can just run forever like a DOS box. Keep a set of XP installation-recovery disks handy and you should be fine.

Has anyone asked the folks that wrote ZaraRadio (the free version) how it behaves on Win 7 and 8, and if they intend to tweak it so it runs dependably on those platforms? Otherwise, I'd just drive your XP rig until it smokes.

One final point: "XP" to me implies older hardware. IMO, you should plan now for the hardware failure that's coming and back up your audio library, your log and rotations.

Zara runs just fine on Vista and Windows 7 (haven't tried it on 8 yet).  You need to use their last free version (or presumably their paid for version).

Unfortunately, you can't run Virtual Audio Cable unless you disable driver signing (which means that there's no security for ANY driver installations, but if you're careful, that really isn't a problem).

Windows Update on XP won't run unless you have SP3.  If you don't, you may have to manually download SP3, and you may also require an update to Windows Update as well (you have to download that manually was well).  I found that out the hard way when I installed a fresh copy of XP on one of my radio PC's (it contained SP2) and couldn't get the latest updates.