Alternative iPod Firmware - Rockbox

[onemorething]

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]

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]

Not so fast

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]

[...] 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]

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]

[...] 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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Apple Lossless Encoding.

Ah, I should have guessed. I've always refered to it as ALAC.

 

[shawnce]

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 is an open standard (ISO/IEC) and is licensable by anyone (for nominal cost). (of course FairPlay isn't but the OP wasn't talking about that)

Apple Lossless is much like FLAC and a public open source decoder exists for it.

 

[ChrisA]

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]

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]

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...

 

[bankshot]

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]

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]

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.