PDA

View Full Version : Alternative iPod Firmware - Rockbox


MacRumors
May 2, 2006, 11:49 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

CNET reports (http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6450_7-6513844-1.html?tag=cnetfd.sd) on an alternative firmware for some models of the Apple iPod (as well as 3rd party MP3 players). The open source firmware is called Rockbox (http://www.rockbox.org/) and attempts to offer additional functionality beyond what the manufacturer intended.

In its current state, the Rockbox interface is utilitarian, graphically sparse, and reminiscent of a command-line system, and it lacks the flash of modern commercial MP3 players. But where it comes up short in pizzazz, it more than compensates in options and settings, many of which would make the default iPod jealous.

The software remains a work in progress with the official release not due until November, according to the article. The additional features include OGG and FLAC support, gapless playback, crossfades, photo playback, games, and custom themes (http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/WpsIpod5g#iPod_Vision_5G).

Users will sacrifice some ease of use as well as iTunes Music Store (Protected AAC) compatibility. Currently supported iPods include the 4th Generation iPod (Monochrome (http://guides.macrumors.com/iPod_%284G_Monochrome%29) and Color (http://guides.macrumors.com/iPod_%284G_Color%29)), 5th Generation iPod (http://guides.macrumors.com/iPod_%285G%29), Nano (http://guides.macrumors.com/iPod_nano) and 1st/2nd generation Mini (http://guides.macrumors.com/iPod_mini).

twoodcc
May 2, 2006, 11:52 PM
interesting.....we'll have to wait and see what this is really about

wnurse
May 2, 2006, 11:53 PM
This would be interesting to me as i do not buy music from itunes but even then, what if the software hoses my ipod? would i be able to restore the original ipod operating system?

me hate windows
May 2, 2006, 11:54 PM
Cool, I'd like to see how this performs on my iPod.

Stridder44
May 2, 2006, 11:59 PM
Err....any pics/screenshots?

Ja Di ksw
May 2, 2006, 11:59 PM
Sigh, won't work with mine (1G and 3G), I'd be interested in testing it

shalghamz
May 3, 2006, 12:00 AM
Wow - time for Apple Legal to get on the ball with this thing before it causes ipod failures left and right....wait...if installing Rockbox voids the warrantee then GeniusBar would have to charge to fix it - upside: an influx in revenue from repairs. Downside: an influx in repairs. Something about this story rubbed me the wrong way.

kainjow
May 3, 2006, 12:00 AM
This is old news. Plus, iPodLinux + podzilla = way better :)

Last time I checked Rockbox doesn't work on HFS+ iPods, so most of you iPod owners our out of luck unless you want to reformat your iPods.

kainjow
May 3, 2006, 12:02 AM
Wow - time for Apple Legal to get on the ball with this thing before it causes ipod failures left and right....wait...if installing Rockbox voids the warrantee then GeniusBar would have to charge to fix it - upside: an influx in revenue from repairs. Downside: an influx in repairs. Something about this story rubbed me the wrong way.
Apple legal doesn't give a hoot about this.

Demon Hunter
May 3, 2006, 12:03 AM
What's so great about OGG and FLAC?

longofest
May 3, 2006, 12:05 AM
Last time I checked Rockbox doesn't work on HFS+ iPods, so most of you iPod owners our out of luck unless you want to reformat your iPods.

Correct. You would have to re-format your iPod to be FAT32. The whole process is very complicated (mainly installing the bootloader, since it is completely command-line driven).

They state in their mission-statement apparently that they have no desire to support protected-AAC, so if they aren't even going to attempt to get Fairplay compatability (probably be breaking DMCA anyways), then it's really of no use for me and I'm guessing a lot of other users who have bought music from iTunes music store.

... and don't want to bother burning/ripping the songs and dealing with associated loss (since someone is bound to point that out)...

Wingdings
May 3, 2006, 12:07 AM
What's so great about OGG and FLAC?

FLAC is a lossless audio codec that requires a lot less space than WAV, for example.
AFAIK about OGG, it's another audio codec that has better compression algorithms than MP3 or something like that.

kainjow
May 3, 2006, 12:07 AM
The whole process is very complicated (mainly installing the bootloader, since it is completely command-line driven).
Actually, in raw commands on a FAT32 iPod, Rockbox installation is way easier than iPodLinux. You only have like 2 files you have to transfer over to your iPod, while iPodLinux has tons of files and since it's Linux it's picky about permissions and such.

Anawrahta
May 3, 2006, 12:07 AM
What's so great about OGG and FLAC?

OGG?? I have no idea, but some people seem to prefer it to MP3s, I would assume better quality/size ratio or something

FLAC? It's one of the main non-lossy music encoding formats. So if you're a true audiofile MP3s at any bit rate probably won't cut it, and you'll want to jam some of these files on your 60gig ipod with your amp and sennheiser HD600s.

longofest
May 3, 2006, 12:08 AM
What's so great about OGG and FLAC?

I hope there isn't any Linux users on this forum... if so, you are about to get your answer...

DJ Bliss
May 3, 2006, 12:08 AM
This is nothing more than a cute trick. Whoop dee do you learned how to put something else on your iPod.

Want to impress me? Put Windows XP on your iPod. That's why I got boot camp. for the spider solitaire. love that game.

nagromme
May 3, 2006, 12:09 AM
I'd rather dual-boot between the Apple firmware and iPod Linux/Podzilla. Which you can do :) Best of both worlds, if you're brave.

But hey, more options is no bad thing!

Ranma13
May 3, 2006, 12:20 AM
This is nothing more than a cute trick. Whoop dee do you learned how to put something else on your iPod.

Want to impress me? Put Windows XP on your iPod. That's why I got boot camp. for the spider solitaire. love that game.

You're impressed because Windows XP has Spider Solitaire? Boy are you misguided...

Lollypop
May 3, 2006, 12:25 AM
Of interest is the support for gapless playback and cross fade playback. Just shows, apple can support these features.

Also supports dual booting... gota love that!

ErikGrim
May 3, 2006, 12:26 AM
There are some "beautiful themes (http://dw.com.com/redir?oid=4520-6450_7-6513844-1&ontid=6450&siteid=7&edid=3&lop=txt&destcat=ex&destUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Erockbox%2Eorg%2Ftwiki%2Fbin%2Fview%2FMain%2FWpsIpod5g%23iPod%5FVision%5F5 G)" and screenshots in the article (http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6450_7-6513844-1.html?tag=cnetfd.sd).

Rockbox is cute if you are a tinkering geek, but of little to no interest to the general public (unless you are absolutely dying for gapless playback). OGG and FLAC are equivalent to AAC and Apple Lossless, except they are open source and used only in very very niche markets (Read: Linux users).

elo
May 3, 2006, 12:39 AM
This is nothing more than a cute trick. Whoop dee do you learned how to put something else on your iPod.

Want to impress me? Put Windows XP on your iPod. That's why I got boot camp. for the spider solitaire. love that game.

For those of us who care about gapless playback, this is far more than a cute trick. I've been actively looking to defect from my iPods to something that can support gapless playback. This *might* let me stay with the iPods.

syklee26
May 3, 2006, 12:45 AM
personally, I don't think OGG is all that. What I would like iTunes to have is using LAME MP3 encoder. I know that there is a 3rd party download that lets us use it but native support would be nice.

c-Row
May 3, 2006, 12:51 AM
I'd rather see support for MOD/XM/S3M/etc. files without too much installation and firmware upgrading hassle. Plus, I want to hear a good explanation how they got rid of the gap inbetween mp3 files. AFAIK, this gap is a result of leading information inside the file which has to be read before the track starts playing, and the process of de-encoding the file. Even WinAmp on a AMD 3500+ won't do gapless (unless you call minimum crossfading "gapless").

freiheit
May 3, 2006, 12:52 AM
OGG and FLAC are equivalent to AAC and Apple Lossless, except they are open source and used only in very very niche markets (Read: Linux users).

Or anyone who doesn't want their music collection tied up in a format controlled by the marketing whims of a single company. I put all my CDs in FLAC format because I really cannot say that in 10 years I'll still be using an OS that Apple supports with iTunes.

Shamus
May 3, 2006, 12:59 AM
Hmm, some of those Themes do look better than I expected. But still, I prefer the standard firmware, as I dont have a need for the extra features in Rockbox, like OGG compatibility etc.

MrCrowbar
May 3, 2006, 01:02 AM
Playback with gaps is intentional. Missing gaps can be very annoying. Try to copy a fast faced album and remove the 2 seconds between the tracks. It's horrible. However live albums are meant to be gapless so you have one long stream divided into tracks like chapters in a DVD so you won't notice the switch (at least on good CD players).

Another thing with gapless playback it loud clicking noise when songs are changing. It's a shame, but many Audio CDs were not mastered correctly to have a zero crossing at the start and at the end of the track. An intentional gap allows to add a transition to 0 dB after the song ended.

If you really need gapless playback for a live album, you can set the ga for specific tracks in iTunes.

bloodycape
May 3, 2006, 01:02 AM
Man is cnet a little behind on their news. I saw this like a month ago posted all over the net.

MrMickS
May 3, 2006, 01:28 AM
So I can make my iPod like an iRiver. Wow, that's impressive.

Don't all of these things miss the point. Its the integration between iTunes and the iPod that makes it usable. Not just what you can do on the device.

NicP
May 3, 2006, 01:33 AM
Wow - time for Apple Legal to get on the ball with this thing before it causes ipod failures left and right....wait...if installing Rockbox voids the warrantee then GeniusBar would have to charge to fix it - upside: an influx in revenue from repairs. Downside: an influx in repairs. Something about this story rubbed me the wrong way.
by your logic installing linux or windows on a mac should void the warranty

superleccy
May 3, 2006, 02:07 AM
I used Rockbox a two-or-three years ago when I owned an Archos Jukebox (that was back in my Windows ME days). The Archos UI was terrible, and Rockbox was a huge improvement, once you worked out how the hell to use it. :)

It looks like Rockbox has since come along in leaps and bounds. But, no, I won't be putting it on my iPod, for "if it ain't broke don't fix it reasons". But, if I had a spare iPod and a whole load of time on my hands, I might have given it a go just out of curiosity.

Apple won't see this as a threat, but if the extra features keep them on their toes even tiny a bit, then that's a good thing.

Regds
Superleccy

Gherkin
May 3, 2006, 02:17 AM
I just bought Marvin Gaye's "What's Going On." I demand gapless playback. Why doesn't Apple just offer it as an option at least?

Gerwin
May 3, 2006, 02:21 AM
If you buy the cd instead of itms, there is an option in itunes to encode the whole cd as one track. I do it regularly with opera's, because the tracks are unnatural. So if you want gapless, you have to plan ahead, not complain afterwards.

Gherkin
May 3, 2006, 02:29 AM
There's other music that flows together besides opera. And we'd like to split it up as well as have gapless playback. Not asking too much here. Just an option, so everyone can have their way.

toughboy
May 3, 2006, 03:05 AM
Or anyone who doesn't want their music collection tied up in a format controlled by the marketing whims of a single company. I put all my CDs in FLAC format because I really cannot say that in 10 years I'll still be using an OS that Apple supports with iTunes.

In 10 years, I really can't say if I'll be living or dead.. One thing I'm sure though is that there will be Apple and they will somehow show people ways to convert their music even if they wont be using Apple Loseless anymore..

xUKHCx
May 3, 2006, 03:22 AM
Man is cnet a little behind on their news. I saw this like a month ago posted all over the net.

i looked into installing this on my ipod about 5 months ago now, when they just started supporting the 4th gen, it was old news then.

joost538
May 3, 2006, 03:56 AM
So if you want gapless, you have to plan ahead, not complain afterwards.

That is rediculous. Apple is all about providing the ultimate user experience. On a Mac, you don't have to plan ahead or memorize stuff just to get some work done. It Just Works. If I rip a cd that was mastered without gaps, I expect that cd to be playable without gaps, without any planning ahead on my part.

(L)
May 3, 2006, 04:30 AM
SO what? This is totally useless garbage, and of little use to anyone. It only gets interesting if there's something out there that becomes a viable alternative and can therefore pressure Apple into incorporating similar features etc, done right. Doing something minor poorly just doesn't go anywhere. More like a hobby; nothing for others to see.

sunfast
May 3, 2006, 04:31 AM
With the excpetion of gapless playback, this is of no real interest to me. I wish Apple would just sort out gapless playback though!

shalghamz
May 3, 2006, 04:35 AM
by your logic installing linux or windows on a mac should void the warranty

You're right...no wait; you're wrong.
Going by your logic then Apple would be the new troubleshooter for Windows and Linux. Likewise Apple can't [and won't] be liable for the problems "RockBox" can foreseeably bring about for your iPod.
So you see it OBVIOUSLY at least has the potential to void the warranty on some level. :eek:

thejadedmonkey
May 3, 2006, 05:11 AM
Those themes are waay cool! Maybe Apple should take a page out of rockbox's book and give us some themes...

steve_hill4
May 3, 2006, 05:31 AM
I like some of the ideas this brings, but I won't be recommending it to anyone.

Evangelion
May 3, 2006, 07:22 AM
This would be interesting to me as i do not buy music from itunes but even then, what if the software hoses my ipod? would i be able to restore the original ipod operating system?

Yes you could.

What's so great about OGG and FLAC?

Both are royalty- and patent-free and open-source (unlike mp3 for example). FLAC is lossless, whereas Ogg is lossy. Most people think that Ogg has superior sound-quality when compared to mp3's.

I hope there isn't any Linux users on this forum... if so, you are about to get your answer...

I'm a Linux-user, and I don't think there was anything wrong with my reply ;)

ccunning
May 3, 2006, 07:24 AM
... and don't want to bother burning/ripping the songs and dealing with associated loss (since someone is bound to point that out)...
These comments always crack me up. If you really cared about sound quality you wouldn't be buying your music in a lossy format to begin with. I'd venture to say if you can't hear the difference between CDDA-->AAC, then you're not likely going to hear the difference between AAC-->MP3

Evangelion
May 3, 2006, 07:28 AM
So I can make my iPod like an iRiver. Wow, that's impressive.

Don't all of these things miss the point. Its the integration between iTunes and the iPod that makes it usable. Not just what you can do on the device.

I find my iPod to be a wonderful piece of equipment and it works flawlessly, and I don't use itunes with it.

p0intblank
May 3, 2006, 07:42 AM
Gapless playback... :eek:!

j-a-x
May 3, 2006, 08:13 AM
Sounds interesting, but I don't think I'm ready to give up my default iPod firmware just yet...

glowingstar
May 3, 2006, 08:21 AM
gapless playback.......and crossfades......! been waiting for that since day one. :p

Keebler
May 3, 2006, 08:30 AM
on my previous archos player.

it's not as slick looking as the ipod software, but definitely functional. perhaps their new version has some new features, but i found the ipod had more features after i made the switch a few years ago.

the software was rock solid...didn't crash...worked well.

i could never see not using the ipod software? it seems to do almost everything??

jzeiders
May 3, 2006, 08:37 AM
Yea - more options are only a good thing - :rolleyes:

Shintocam
May 3, 2006, 08:47 AM
These comments always crack me up. If you really cared about sound quality you wouldn't be buying your music in a lossy format to begin with. I'd venture to say if you can't hear the difference between CDDA-->AAC, then you're not likely going to hear the difference between AAC-->MP3

And replies like this crack ME up. Yes I can hear the difference between CDDA and AAC but the difference is tolerable for the most part (although I really wish Apple would move to 192 rather than 128bit for iTunes).

The problem is the second part of your reply. You are not converting from a clean CD anymore you are converting from an already lossy format into another lossy format, and I tell you something I can most definately notice this difference and it is not tolerable.

Your logic is not fully thought out. Take a TIFF image and convert it to JPG. You will notice some quality loss - particularly if you zoom in, but if it is the first conversion it is probably tolerable. Now convert that image back and forth between PNG and JPG for a bit and you will see the quality degrade dramatically overtime.

Creating an AAC from a raw CD is one thing. Then taking that modified file and converting it again is another.

EDIT: It has been pointed out to me that I was mistaken that conversion from AAC to CD causes quality loss (thanks Yvan256). Also I mistakenly said RIP to CD and meant Burn. Anyhow the post above has been corrected.

onemorething
May 3, 2006, 08:47 AM
This is old news. Plus, iPodLinux + podzilla = way better :)

Last time I checked Rockbox doesn't work on HFS+ iPods, so most of you iPod owners our out of luck unless you want to reformat your iPods.


yeah! i have iPodLinux on my 5G 30GB iPod its awesome. I tried a beta release of rockbox and it crashed my iPod.

Yvan256
May 3, 2006, 08:48 AM
There's other music that flows together besides opera. And we'd like to split it up as well as have gapless playback. Not asking too much here. Just an option, so everyone can have their way.

Synthesizer music, for one. A few tracks of Jean-Michel Jarre's latest album (Aero) are meant to be played together (i.e. gapless).

If the problem is technical (which is hard to believe, seeing as Rockbox is able to do it with the iPod), the least Apple could do is to have the "linked tracks" ripped as a single track but to have markers to preserve the tracks-inside-the-single-track. They already have "start/end" markers, I really don't see why they couldn't simply add more markers inside the file.

Current situtation:

Track-1.m4a
- track 1 start
- track 1 end

Track-2.m4a
- track 2 start
- track 2 end

Track-3.m4a
- track 3 start
- track 3 end

All we need is more markers and a little modification to iTunes and the iPods firmware:

Track-1-2-3-gapless.m4a
- track 1 start
- track 1 end
- track 2 start
- track 2 end
- track 3 start
- track 3 end

I sent the idea to Apple a few months ago, I guess they either think it's a bad idea and/or they don't care about people who complain about the lack of gapless playback.

IMO, their current implementation of "joined tracks" is completely useless since you lose the ability to skip tracks. Instead of keeping tracks 1-2-3,4,5, you end up with "tracks 1,4,5" which is also confusing (or is it even worst, i.e. "tracks 1,2,3", with "tracks 2,3" being tracks 4,5?)

Come on Apple, add real gapless playback and/or ripping already!

Shintocam
May 3, 2006, 08:52 AM
If you buy the cd instead of itms, there is an option in itunes to encode the whole cd as one track. I do it regularly with opera's, because the tracks are unnatural. So if you want gapless, you have to plan ahead, not complain afterwards.

This is not an acceptable solution and so I will continue to complain. I too listen to Opera. Similarly I listen to a lot of Pink Floyd (All their albums are meant to play through without gaps). How if I record the entire thing as one track can I jump to a particular piece or song? THAT is why I want gapless playback so that I have the option of playing one part of the album or the entire thing as it was meant to be.

I like to listen to music on random mode....and I would like on occassion to hear a Floyd track in the mix - with your solution, everytime Flyod come on I'll be listening to the entire album.

Yvan256
May 3, 2006, 08:52 AM
[...] The problem is the second part of your reply - you cannot convert protected AAC-->MP3 directly. You must first RIP to CD (one level of quality loss) and then convert again to MP3 (another level of quality loss), and I tell you something I can most definately notice this difference and it is not tolerable.[...]

Unless I completely misunderstood that part of your post, I have a comment to add: going from ANY lossy format to CD audio does NOT results in more quality loss. Your CD is going to sound as bad as whatever your source file was. Going from MP3/AAC/whatever to CD or to your DACs is the same process. Also, going from AAC to CD isn't called a "rip", it's a "burn".

You are right about the rest of your post, though. Some people really don't understand the whole "lossy/lossless" thing (and your TIFF/JPEG analogy is right on the money).

Shintocam
May 3, 2006, 08:57 AM
Unless I completely misunderstood that part of your post, I have a comment to add: going from ANY lossy format to CD audio does NOT results in more quality loss. Your CD is going to sound as bad as whatever your source file was. Going from MP3/AAC/whatever to CD or to your DACs is the same process. Also, going from AAC to CD isn't called a "rip", it's a "burn".

You are right about the rest of your post, though. Some people really don't understand the whole "lossy/lossless" thing (and your TIFF/JPEG analogy is right on the money).

Thanks for the post. I guess I was mistaken - thinking that the conversion back to CD (burning as you corrected) also caused loss - I've only ever tried it in order to then create an MP3 - which I quickly gave up on.

A little knowledge is sometimes a bad thing - so thanks for correcting my post.

Yvan256
May 3, 2006, 09:00 AM
[...] Most people think that Ogg has superior sound-quality when compared to mp3's.

OGG, AAC (and even WMA in most cases) are all superior to MP3 (at the same bitrates). But that's quite normal since MP3 is more than a decade old (MP3 was standardized in 1992).

The usual "quality" order (from lowest to highest) in tests and reviews is: MP3, WMA, OGG, AAC (though sometimes OGG comes ahead of AAC, depending on the test).

Yvan256
May 3, 2006, 09:04 AM
These comments always crack me up. If you really cared about sound quality you wouldn't be buying your music in a lossy format to begin with. I'd venture to say if you can't hear the difference between CDDA-->AAC, then you're not likely going to hear the difference between AAC-->MP3

The difference between CD->AAC vs AAC->MP3 comparison is quite easy to hear. You're comparing lossless->lossy vs lossy->even more lossy.

In fact, I'd bet that most people would prefer the sound quality of CD->AAC@128kbps instead of AAC@128kbps->MP3@256kbps.

With lossy formats, all that really matters is the source. The bitrate/filesize doesn't mean anything if your source isn't good quality.

deadturtle
May 3, 2006, 09:50 AM
I hope there isn't any Linux users on this forum... if so, you are about to get your answer...

Ok, I'm a linux user... my answer is..... 42!!!!

This is nothing more than a cute trick. Whoop dee do you learned how to put something else on your iPod.

Want to impress me? Put Windows XP on your iPod. That's why I got boot camp. for the spider solitaire. love that game.

All I have to say to that is ROFLMAO.. if Spider Solitare is your thing..
http://www.semicolon.com/STDX.html

Get a Mac version!!!! Support OS X software developers!!

There's other music that flows together besides opera. And we'd like to split it up as well as have gapless playback. Not asking too much here. Just an option, so everyone can have their way.

As someone else here mentioned Pink Floyd and iTunes do not play well.... just try listening to The Wall or Wish You Were Here or Final Cut... *music plays* bloop *next track* /me smacks head against wall.... I'm working on migrating away from iTunes for everything except purchases.. still wish Apple offered something other than AAC though....


gapless playback.......and crossfades......! been waiting for that since day one. :p


I think iTunes has some flavor of crossfade, dont own a pod so I dont know how that translates over...

As far as rockbox is concerned the one thing holding me back from an iPod besides the herd mentality is the lack of other codecs. AAC/MP3 is nice an all, but I do have some FLAC and a fair amount of OGG, not to mention some really oddball stuff from old computer games and such that no player ever will be able to hande so I just transcode to MP3.. midi support would be kinda cool too, but now I'm really dreaming!

ITR 81
May 3, 2006, 10:04 AM
FLAC is a lossless audio codec that requires a lot less space than WAV, for example.
AFAIK about OGG, it's another audio codec that has better compression algorithms than MP3 or something like that.


But whats the point if your using ALE already in iTunes?

Can't PC users also use ALE in iTunes or is that Mac only(I don't think it is).

longofest
May 3, 2006, 10:07 AM
But whats the point if your using ALE already in iTunes?

Can't PC users also use ALE in iTunes or is that Mac only(I don't think it is).

FLAC == Open source codec

Apple Lossless == Proprietary codec

For me, I don't care, but for many that's reason enough.

ccunning
May 3, 2006, 10:17 AM
The problem is the second part of your reply. You are not converting from a clean CD anymore you are converting from an already lossy format into another lossy format, and I tell you something I can most definately notice this difference and it is not tolerable.

Your logic is not fully thought out. Take a TIFF image and convert it to JPG. You will notice some quality loss - particularly if you zoom in, but if it is the first conversion it is probably tolerable. Now convert that image back and forth between PNG and JPG for a bit and you will see the quality degrade dramatically overtime.

Creating an AAC from a raw CD is one thing. Then taking that modified file and converting it again is another.


I agree completly that the quality will continue to degrade. I'm certain thats not what I said or even implied. The analogy though would be TIFF-->JPG-->PNG not TIFF-->JPG-->PNG-->JPG-->PNG-->JPG....as you suggest. and really it comes down to what compression settings you use (for the audio or the image). If I re-encode your AAC file to 320kbps MP3 file I still stand by my comment that you would not notice the difference whereas if I re-encoded it at 16 kbps of course it is going to sound horrible.

ITR 81
May 3, 2006, 10:19 AM
Ok, I'm a linux user... my answer is..... 42!!!!



All I have to say to that is ROFLMAO.. if Spider Solitare is your thing..
http://www.semicolon.com/STDX.html

Get a Mac version!!!! Support OS X software developers!!



As someone else here mentioned Pink Floyd and iTunes do not play well.... just try listening to The Wall or Wish You Were Here or Final Cut... *music plays* bloop *next track* /me smacks head against wall.... I'm working on migrating away from iTunes for everything except purchases.. still wish Apple offered something other than AAC though....





I think iTunes has some flavor of crossfade, dont own a pod so I dont know how that translates over...

As far as rockbox is concerned the one thing holding me back from an iPod besides the herd mentality is the lack of other codecs. AAC/MP3 is nice an all, but I do have some FLAC and a fair amount of OGG, not to mention some really oddball stuff from old computer games and such that no player ever will be able to hande so I just transcode to MP3.. midi support would be kinda cool too, but now I'm really dreaming!

(AAC (16 to 320 Kbps), Protected AAC (from iTunes Music Store), MP3 (16 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, Audible (formats 2, 3 and 4), Apple Lossless, WAV, AIFF)
All the above will play on the iPod.

I would just transcode into one of the above.
ALE is good..and it's always better to buy the CD so you have a hardcopy of the orig. for additional rips.

I only buy from iTunes when I can't find the song somewhere else(usually some mom and pop music store).

my opinions only..nothing more..

ITR 81
May 3, 2006, 10:24 AM
I agree completly that the quality will continue to degrade. I'm certain thats not what I said or even implied. The analogy though would be TIFF-->JPG-->PNG not TIFF-->JPG-->PNG-->JPG-->PNG-->JPG....as you suggest. and really it comes down to what compression settings you use (for the audio or the image). If I re-encode your AAC file to 320kbps MP3 file I still stand by my comment that you would not notice the difference whereas if I re-encoded it at 16 kbps of course it is going to sound horrible.


Before ALE I had to use AAC at 320kps for a Mad World Alt song...because anything else just sounded like crap.

Even at the max setting in AAC it still clips from time to time.
Only ALE did it right.
Whats odd I encoded the regular Mad World song and it was ok it was just this weird techno ver...that clipped..hmmm

shamino
May 3, 2006, 10:30 AM
So.... getting back to the original article...

This Rockbox program adds a few not-very-popular file formats, deletes complatibility with iTMS purchases, and replaces the user interface with one that will confuse the typical user.

In other words, it turns an iPod into a player no different from the thousands of other music players you can buy. There's a reason nobody buys players from Creative, Rio, Sony, Panasonic, Dell or any of the others. And it's not because protected-AAC compatibility is a must-have feature.

This software is a bad joke. I'm sure some die-hard hacker types will use it and love it and try to convert the world, but it's never going to be anything more than a curiosity for the rest of the world.

ccunning
May 3, 2006, 10:36 AM
I'd bet that most people would prefer the sound quality of CD->AAC@128kbps instead of AAC@128kbps->MP3@256kbps.And I would bet that people who buy music from iTMS would not notice the difference between CD->AAC@128kbps and AAC@128kbps->MP3@320kbps. But your bet and my bet don't count for much at all.

With lossy formats, all that really matters is the source. The bitrate/filesize doesn't mean anything if your source isn't good quality.I thought your point was AAC@128kbps was good quality. I'm confused.

ccunning
May 3, 2006, 10:38 AM
Before ALE I had to use AAC at 320kps for a Mad World Alt song...because anything else just sounded like crap.

Even at the max setting in AAC it still clips from time to time.
Only ALE did it right.
Whats odd I encoded the regular Mad World song and it was ok it was just this weird techno ver...that clipped..hmmm
And I'm guessing that you're the type of person that would rather buy your music in CDDA format rather than a lossy format, which was my original point.

I'm not familiar with ALE. What is that?

Yvan256
May 3, 2006, 10:50 AM
And I would bet that people who buy music from iTMS would not notice the difference between CD->AAC@128kbps and AAC@128kbps->MP3@320kbps. But your bet and my bet don't count for much at all.

I thought your point was AAC@128kbps was good quality. I'm confused.

If made from a lossless source, AAC@128kbps is good enough quality for most content. Of course there's always the odd tune/song that needs a higher bitrate, but AAC is still a huge improvement over MP3 (at the same bitrate).

I'm not familiar with ALE. What is that?

Apple Lossless Encoding.

ccunning
May 3, 2006, 10:55 AM
Apple Lossless Encoding.Ah, I should have guessed. I've always refered to it as ALAC.

shawnce
May 3, 2006, 11:00 AM
Or anyone who doesn't want their music collection tied up in a format controlled by the marketing whims of a single company. I put all my CDs in FLAC format because I really cannot say that in 10 years I'll still be using an OS that Apple supports with iTunes.

ACC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding) is an open standard (ISO/IEC) and is licensable (http://www.vialicensing.com/products/mpeg4aac/standard.html) by anyone (for nominal cost). (of course FairPlay isn't but the OP wasn't talking about that)

Apple Lossless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Lossless) is much like FLAC and a public open source decoder exists for it.

ChrisA
May 3, 2006, 12:02 PM
And replies like this crack ME up. Yes I can hear the difference between CDDA and AAC but the difference is tolerable for the most part (although I really wish Apple would move to 192 rather than 128bit for iTunes).

The problem is the second part of your reply. You are not converting from a clean CD anymore you are converting from an already lossy format into another lossy format, and I tell you something I can most definately notice this difference and it is not tolerable.

It can be made tolerable but at the cost of some bits. If you keep the bit rate constant converting AAC->MP3 looses some quality. But if you go from AAC(128K) --> CD --> MP3(256K) you don't loose much.

Your example with te TIFF --> JPG is the same thing. If you are willing to use a large enough JPG there is minimal loss.

This however is all moot to me. I don't buy Apple AAC files not untill they improve the quality to be truely "CD quality". Until then I'll prefer the CD. Typically I rip from CD to variable bit rate MP3 with rates at about 200K. even then I'll detect a "glitch" now and then and have to re-encode the odd track. but mostly variable bit rate encoding takes care of glitches because the encoders is free to use any number of bits in the tricky sections of the music.

kugino
May 3, 2006, 01:45 PM
It can be made tolerable but at the cost of some bits. If you keep the bit rate constant converting AAC->MP3 looses some quality. But if you go from AAC(128K) --> CD --> MP3(256K) you don't loose much.


sorry, but this is false. there is no reason to go 128->CD->256, other than to waste more time and/or deceive yourself. you cannot go from 128->CD and magically recover lost information. coverting from CD->256 does not give you any more information than you already had in the 128.

please read up on various formats and converting before posting such nonsense.

morespce54
May 3, 2006, 01:50 PM
Of interest is the support for gapless playback and cross fade playback. Just shows, apple can support these features.

I still don't get why Apple can't support gapless and cross fade playback on the iPod... :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :(

bankshot
May 3, 2006, 01:54 PM
Playback with gaps is intentional. Missing gaps can be very annoying. Try to copy a fast faced album and remove the 2 seconds between the tracks. It's horrible.

That's absolutely ridiculous. Any well-mastered CD will be created in Disc-At-Once (DAO) mode. This includes the vast majority of all commercially available music CDs. If silent pauses are desired between tracks, they will be added as silent audio data at the end of tracks, length to the artist's taste. The only way you get 2-second gaps between tracks is if you create the CD in Track-At-Once (TAO) mode. This is usually only done by amateurs with cheap CD recording software. And quite frankly, if iTunes doesn't automatically add that 2-second gap when ripping a TAO CD, it should.

Another thing with gapless playback it loud clicking noise when songs are changing. It's a shame, but many Audio CDs were not mastered correctly to have a zero crossing at the start and at the end of the track. An intentional gap allows to add a transition to 0 dB after the song ended.

What? Again, this is only the case for very poorly mastered CDs. The kind of garbage some teenager is going to create from his crappy garage band. A proper gapless CD will have one well-mixed and mastered, continuous audio track for the whole CD, with markers to designate where individual tracks start. There should be absolutely no hard transition from the last sample of track A to the first sample of track A+1. Should be totally smooth.

Ok, I'll admit that I've run into a handful of commercial CDs by big-name artists that were very, very poorly made. Amateur level mistakes like a split-second of the previous song gets into the beginning of the track for the current song, etc. I always can't believe it when I hear this kind of crap, and it tells me that the particular band and record company didn't care at all about quality control. Didn't they even listen to the thing before sending it out?? It boggles my mind that such glaring mistakes can be made, but I guess they were all too busy getting excited about all the money they'd be making.

Bottom line about gapless, iTunes and iPod should play albums exactly the way a CD player does -- without gaps and with the ability to skip individual tracks. Right now they can do one or the other, but not both. Pretty sad. :(

bankshot
May 3, 2006, 01:58 PM
What's so great about OGG and FLAC?

OGG has a prety neat feature that would actually be incredibly useful for the smaller iPods. The data is packed in such a way that higher bitrate information can be "peeled" off to obtain a lower bitrate file without re-encoding. All you have to do is discard the higher quality data and you're left with a perfectly playable file that's exactly what you'd get if you'd encoded at a lower bitrate. Very clever.

With this feature, re-encoding at lower bitrates for small iPods would be so much easier, because there's no re-encoding at all. Wouldn't that be nice?

boncellis
May 3, 2006, 02:02 PM
I've also heard good things about FLAC, but most of them were from propellerheads whose personal hygiene was suspect at best.

I think having another option is inherently good, but Apple has guarded the inside of the iPod so closely, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple does something to counteract this potential.

bankshot
May 3, 2006, 02:05 PM
I sent the idea to Apple a few months ago, I guess they either think it's a bad idea and/or they don't care about people who complain about the lack of gapless playback.

I firmly believe that Apple does not care about this. I've sent in numerous suggestions and bug reports, only to be ignored. This also causes me to question the legend of Jobs being such a perfectionist. Wouldn't this bug a real perfectionist?

I know one person who works there (completely unaffiliated with the iPod/iTunes teams) who sympathizes with me, but obviously doesn't have any influence over this issue. The problem is that 99.999% of iPod customers aren't even aware of the problem, let alone care about it. They listen on shuffle 100% of the time, and probably wouldn't notice even if they listened to a "gapless" album in order. Too bad.

Rockbox does seem interesting, but the problem is that it isn't, and never will be, a drop-in replacement for the iPod firmware. It doesn't use the iTunes database on the iPod, so no sync with iTunes and no updates of metadata like last-played-time and play count. I've come to rely on these for building smart playlists, and as much as gaps annoy the heck out of me, I can't bring myself to give them up to get gapless. Rockbox also doesn't play protected AAC (which admittedly only accounts for < 100 of my 5,000 tracks).

shamino
May 3, 2006, 03:24 PM
The problem is that 99.999% of iPod customers aren't even aware of the problem, let alone care about it. They listen on shuffle 100% of the time, and probably wouldn't notice even if they listened to a "gapless" album in order. Too bad.
Bingo! And I'm included in that list.

I almost never listen to tracks in sequence. I have smart playlists that load my 4G iPod mini with random tracks from my Mac's 40G library, and the iPod always plays in shuffle mode. This mode of operation is one of the key reasons for buying an iPod. If I want sequential playback, I can play the CD I ripped the tracks from.

Gapless playback would be nice, but I don't think it will ever be a priority for Apple, unless a lot of customers start requesting it. (And a small number of people repeatedly requesting the same thing isn't the same thing.)

More important than the iPod, I wish my car stereo (a JVC Arsenal model) would offer gapless playback on MP3 CDs, since I often do listen to those discs sequentially. But fractional-second pauses on my Pink Floyd discs are hardly going to be enough to get me to buy new hardware or re-rip the tracks.

bloodycape
May 3, 2006, 03:29 PM
As far as rockbox is concerned the one thing holding me back from an iPod besides the herd mentality is the lack of other codecs. AAC/MP3 is nice an all, but I do have some FLAC and a fair amount of OGG, not to mention some really oddball stuff from old computer games and such that no player ever will be able to hande so I just transcode to MP3.. midi support would be kinda cool too, but now I'm really dreaming!

You should check out stuff from neuros they are runing a linux based firmware that pretty much has native support for all the codec you probably use. Also there is Cowon who also has support the similar codec support to the neuros out the box or with a simple firmware upgrade.

bloodycape
May 3, 2006, 03:37 PM
So.... getting back to the original article...

This Rockbox program adds a few not-very-popular file formats, deletes complatibility with iTMS purchases, and replaces the user interface with one that will confuse the typical user.

In other words, it turns an iPod into a player no different from the thousands of other music players you can buy. There's a reason nobody buys players from Creative, Rio, Sony, Panasonic, Dell or any of the others. And it's not because protected-AAC compatibility is a must-have feature.

This software is a bad joke. I'm sure some die-hard hacker types will use it and love it and try to convert the world, but it's never going to be anything more than a curiosity for the rest of the world.

I dont think that is true at all. If you look at many Asians countries mainly Japan and South Korea, the best selling player isn't the ipod but it is something else.
I hear sandisk doesn't have the best interface in their mp3 players but yet they are #2 in the North American markets. Rio was the only one you mentioned that is gapless and has sound quality that is just as good as the ipod. Their only mistake was bad marketing.

shamino
May 3, 2006, 03:43 PM
I dont think that is true at all. If you look at many Asians countries mainly Japan and South Korea, the best selling player isn't the ipod but it is something else.
I've seen that same statistic. It's my understanding that this is because of a huge price gap between the iPod and locally-grown varieties. Partly due to manufacturing costs, and partly due to government subsidies/tariffs.
I hear sandisk doesn't have the best interface in their mp3 players but yet they are #2 in the North American markets.
Yep. They jumped almost immediately to #2 when they entered the market. Mostly because they make their own flash chips, and so they can get a better price than anyone else.

Apple competes based on ease of use, industrial design and features (with ease of use being the most important). The rest of the world pretty much competes on price alone (except for some absolute disasters, which don't compete at all.)

zach
May 3, 2006, 03:56 PM
sorry, but this is false. there is no reason to go 128->CD->256, other than to waste more time and/or deceive yourself. you cannot go from 128->CD and magically recover lost information. coverting from CD->256 does not give you any more information than you already had in the 128.

please read up on various formats and converting before posting such nonsense.

actually, you're wrong.

if the conversion was 128AAC->CDDA->256AAC, you'd be totally correct: you'd gain absolutely nothing, and barring non-corrected read errors, you'd end up with the exact same audio quality.

however, your analysis does NOT hold true from 128AAC->CDDA->256MP3. in fact, ripping using ANY algorithm other than the original AAC will lose sound quality UNLESS it is lossless. all the algorithms compress using different mechanisms. the OP is actually right in stating that while a CD burnt from 128AAC will lose considerable quality ripped at 128MP3, it will lose quite a bit less ripped in 256 MP3.

back to rockbox... with the exception of two features, i have absolutely no interest.. but why in hell can't Apple support FLAC and gapless? while i usually encode my music in apple lossless, i have no idea if i'm really getting lossless.. iTunes is a notoriously bad ripper, and the same may hold true for apple lossless. and MUCH of the music i listen to (pink floyd, tool, various trance/electronica, live shows) can only truly be experienced gapless. i'd actually PREFER ability to rip apple lossless as one file and add markers, as an earlier poster stated, but they could at least give us FLAC and gapless. it'd be absurdly easy to add gapless, especially since the iPod has two processors, it could decode the streams realtime and splice them, rather than having to decode ahead of time like my computer has to with only one core.

but i digress.

zach
May 3, 2006, 03:58 PM
More important than the iPod, I wish my car stereo (a JVC Arsenal model) would offer gapless playback on MP3 CDs, since I often do listen to those discs sequentially. But fractional-second pauses on my Pink Floyd discs are hardly going to be enough to get me to buy new hardware or re-rip the tracks.

gapless playback on MP3s is not really an option, as the files have an unspecified empty space at the end.. gapless refers to seamless playback of lossless codecs such as FLAC, APE, or apple lossless.

bankshot
May 3, 2006, 05:22 PM
gapless playback on MP3s is not really an option, as the files have an unspecified empty space at the end.. gapless refers to seamless playback of lossless codecs such as FLAC, APE, or apple lossless.

Not quite true. There are a couple of options for gapless with MP3 and similar formats. For one, an intelligently written player could look for silence at the end of the last frame and remove it. I've experimented with this some myself just to see if it could be done and had pretty good results. Second, many MP3 encoders are now putting the exact end time of the track into the tags so that a player aware of this could read that and simply not play any samples past that. Either method works.

lostless
May 3, 2006, 06:20 PM
In Case of you have not noticed, that AAC is gapless. Youll never know it unless you play it on a psp. Amazingly, the psp can play aac gapless that are ripped from itunes. Yet Mp3 does not play gaplessly on the psp. Im saying if apple only allowed gapless on aac, i would be satisfied.

kugino
May 3, 2006, 07:14 PM
actually, you're wrong.

if the conversion was 128AAC->CDDA->256AAC, you'd be totally correct: you'd gain absolutely nothing, and barring non-corrected read errors, you'd end up with the exact same audio quality.

however, your analysis does NOT hold true from 128AAC->CDDA->256MP3. in fact, ripping using ANY algorithm other than the original AAC will lose sound quality UNLESS it is lossless. all the algorithms compress using different mechanisms. the OP is actually right in stating that while a CD burnt from 128AAC will lose considerable quality ripped at 128MP3, it will lose quite a bit less ripped in 256 MP3.


why am i wrong again? sure, i understand that AAC->AAC is better than AAC->mp3, but going from 128aac->CD->256mp3 or 256AAC will not give you anything more than what was already in the 128AAC...isn't that what i said in my original post? :confused:

Kufat
May 3, 2006, 08:51 PM
gapless playback on MP3s is not really an option, as the files have an unspecified empty space at the end.. gapless refers to seamless playback of lossless codecs such as FLAC, APE, or apple lossless.

This is true according to the original MP3 specification, but MP3s encoded with LAME have an additional field in the header that indicates their precise length. (It might just indicate how much of the last frame is empty; I'm not sure.)

I've used Rockbox on an iPod 5G. Since I listen to album-oriented rock and live music, I wouldn't purchase an MP3 player without gapless playback. (On the other hand, I don't think I've intentionally used a shuffle function for many years. Shuffling's not for everyone.) Most of my extensive live music collection is in FLAC and SHN, and I don't feel like converting it.
The UI definitely isn't as smooth as Apple's and there are still bugs around, but if I ever got another iPod, installing Rockbox would be the first thing I did.

EvilBeans
May 3, 2006, 08:55 PM
Not quite true. There are a couple of options for gapless with MP3 and similar formats. For one, an intelligently written player could look for silence at the end of the last frame and remove it. I've experimented with this some myself just to see if it could be done and had pretty good results. Second, many MP3 encoders are now putting the exact end time of the track into the tags so that a player aware of this could read that and simply not play any samples past that. Either method works.

Hey folks. I stumbled across a link to this thread on another forum and thought I'd chime in.

As bankshot mentioned, there are ways to adjust for MP3 frame gaps. The 2 ways bankshot described are exactly how the Rio Karma handles MP3: For tracks encoded using LAME, it reads the track length in the header and starts the following track accordingly. For tracks without track length info, it checks for a sudden silence in the very last frame and starts playing the next track accordingly. While I have no experience with Rockbox, I'm guessing they're doing the same thing.

Someone asked how you can play the next track gaplessly if you have to read the header info first? Easy. I think the term is "double buffering". Basically, start buffering the next track into memory while the current track is still playing.

In my experience, though, this kind of adjustment for MP3 tracks works great, but not always perfect. This is where OGG comes into play. OGG Vorbis (and FLAC, too) is natively gapless, i.e. no frame-gap issue as with mp3. Every CD I own that has any kind of gapless transition in it I encode to OGG, and the gapless transitions on my Karma are perfect.

BTW: It looks like OGG is gradually turning from a niche codec to a mainstream codec. From what I understand, the difference in audio quality between OGG and some of the other codecs at high bit rates isn't that huge, however it's at lower bit rates where it really excels. This would explain why a lot of newer flash players support it, even if they don't play gapless.



Disclaimer: No judgements about the iPod are intended or implied.

LxMx
May 3, 2006, 09:03 PM
This is true according to the original MP3 specification, but MP3s encoded with LAME have an additional field in the header that indicates their precise length. (It might just indicate how much of the last frame is empty; I'm not sure.)

That's right. LAME MP3's have supported gapless playback for some time now.

In Case of you have not noticed, that AAC is gapless. Youll never know it unless you play it on a psp. Amazingly, the psp can play aac gapless that are ripped from itunes. Yet Mp3 does not play gaplessly on the psp. Im saying if apple only allowed gapless on aac, i would be satisfied.

Officially, the AAC spec makes no mention of gapless playback. The only encoder I know of that actually does support gapless is Nero, and even then it uses the same workaround that LAME MP3 uses.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gapless_playback#Format_support.

For me, LAME MP3 is the way to go. You get a mature format that has pretty much universal support, as well as high quality files. LAME MP3 consistently scores equal to, and sometimes better than AAC at bitrates of 192Kbps and above in blind listening tests. (See http://www.rjamorim.com/test/multiformat128/results.html, it's a 128Kbps test, but it illustrates my point that AAC isn't that much better than MP3). To my ears, LAME MP3 with "alt preset standard" is indistinguishable from the source.

Rockbox supports playing LAME MP3's in gapless with no problems. The only time I ever use the Apple firmware is to transfer new songs over to my iPod.

shamino
May 4, 2006, 12:06 AM
if the conversion was 128AAC->CDDA->256AAC, you'd be totally correct: you'd gain absolutely nothing, and barring non-corrected read errors, you'd end up with the exact same audio quality.
Actually, it will end up worse. Recompressing, even with the same CODEC at a higher bitrate causes more data to be thrown away with each generation.

Take any track you like. Use the "Convert to AAC" option in iTunes. Run it again on the result, and again a few more times. You'll notice that each subsequent generation sounds worse than the one before. In some cases (especially tracks with crowd noise, I've found) you notice severe degradation after only the second generation.

Evangelion
May 4, 2006, 02:58 AM
So.... getting back to the original article...

This Rockbox program adds a few not-very-popular file formats, deletes complatibility with iTMS purchases, and replaces the user interface with one that will confuse the typical user.

"Typical users" are NOT going to replace the firmware of their mp3-player. Rockbox is primarily meant for geeks

n other words, it turns an iPod into a player no different from the thousands of other music players you can buy.

No it doesn't. Granted, I don't use RockBox (yet), but if I installed it on my Mini, it would still be the Mini. I don't use iTunes at all, and I still find my Mini to be kick-ass piece of hardware.

This software is a bad joke. I'm sure some die-hard hacker types will use it and love it and try to convert the world, but it's never going to be anything more than a curiosity for the rest of the world.

If someone wants to use this firmware, I REALLY fail to see why you need to get your panties in a bunch over it. Really, what is your problem? Some people decided to write a new firmware for bunch of mp3-players (including the iPod). And because of that, we have people coming in and saying "this is a bad joke!". Don't use it then, problem solved as far as you are concerned. But if someone wants to spend their time doing something like this, and if someone else wants to use their firmware it does NOT concern you, so **** already.

matticus008
May 4, 2006, 10:21 AM
This Rockbox program adds a few not-very-popular file formats, deletes complatibility with iTMS purchases, and replaces the user interface with one that will confuse the typical user.
No it doesn't. You can keep the original firmware on the iPod and switch into Rockbox when you need to play other formats or want to listen to a gapless album.

In other words, it turns an iPod into a player no different from the thousands of other music players you can buy.
No, it expands the use of an iPod into the most feature-complete music player on the market, at the cost of some MB of storage.

This software is a bad joke. I'm sure some die-hard hacker types will use it and love it and try to convert the world, but it's never going to be anything more than a curiosity for the rest of the world.
The software doesn't do anything that that most of the rest of the world needs, wants, or cares about. It is by nature for audiophiles and geeks and tinkerers...and for those of us who can benefit from it, it's anything but a bad joke. (Die-hard hacker types think this is too easy, anyway).

Did anyone see the Arctic Desert theme? It looks pretty amazing, if you ask me.

shamino
May 4, 2006, 11:19 AM
If someone wants to use this firmware, I REALLY fail to see why you need to get your panties in a bunch over it. Really, what is your problem? Some people decided to write a new firmware for bunch of mp3-players (including the iPod). And because of that, we have people coming in and saying "this is a bad joke!". Don't use it then, problem solved as far as you are concerned. But if someone wants to spend their time doing something like this, and if someone else wants to use their firmware it does NOT concern you, so **** already.
Wow. Such a violent reaction to a simple observation. One would think you've got your life's savings riding on this hack or something.

Lay off the caffeine and knock off the personal attacks. If you can't make a point without trying to start a flame war, then take your own advice.

Apple Shmapple
May 4, 2006, 01:32 PM
You're impressed because Windows XP has Spider Solitaire? Boy are you misguided...

And who are you to judge what can and can't be used to impress a computer user? I've seen people choose a computer on a lot more superficial grounds than the software.

milatchi
May 4, 2006, 11:54 PM
It seems cool that this has been done, but I think I'll stick to the good ole' Apple default.

Evangelion
May 5, 2006, 01:27 AM
Wow. Such a violent reaction to a simple observation.

Because your "observation" was totally uncalled for? Not to mention lame?

One would think you've got your life's savings riding on this hack or something.

No. I just get annoyed when some people decide to do something, and then we have completely unrelated people come along and attack them for no good reason. What if you decided to make some piece of music (for example) and decided to hand it out to anyone interested. Then someone came along and said "Your music sucks! In fact, it's nothing but a bad joke!". Whoa, thank you for that piece of constructive criticism!

Don't like their project? Fine, don't use it then.

Lay off the caffeine and knock off the personal attacks.

What "personal attacks"? Please point them out. "Personal attacks" would mean that I called you "stupid", "ugly" or something like that. I didn't do anything of the sort.

If you can't make a point without trying to start a flame war, then take your own advice.

You didn't offer any constructive criticism. You just marched in and told that "This project is nothing but a bad joke!". How's that for a "point"?

LethalWolfe
May 5, 2006, 01:47 AM
why am i wrong again? sure, i understand that AAC->AAC is better than AAC->mp3, but going from 128aac->CD->256mp3 or 256AAC will not give you anything more than what was already in the 128AAC...isn't that what i said in my original post? :confused:

I think the hair splitting is starting w/AAC and ending up w/MP3. A 128AAC should sound better than a 128MP3. So going 128AAC->CD->256MP3 should sound better than going 128AAC->CD->128MP3. But, for example, the converse should not be true. 128MP3->CD->256AAC shouldn't sound better than 128MP3->CD->128AAC.


Lethal