Rockbox boots and appears to be stable on the iPod Color/Photo, the Nano and the Video. Plugins and codecs work, including audio on the Color/Photo and Nano. There is no audio on the Video yet.
http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/IpodPort (http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/IpodPort)
And from the IRC channel:
mp3, aac, wavpack, ac3, wav are all OK. Ogg and ALAC need a little optimising, FLAC has some memory alignment bugs to fix.
Amazing work, the entire Ipod project started just a few months ago, and it appears that people are submitting updates for the ipod port almost daily.
I have a 3G, which isn't supported, but it looks like someone is working on that too, so maybe I'll get to try it out soon
oh my!!!!!!!!
Very good news. I use Rockbox on my H340, and like it. Hopefully this development will also spur the creation of a color GUI, or at least something more than the 1 bit black and white Rockbox currently uses.
Heh just saw this on CVS:
Prevent unaligned memory accesses whilst reading seektable - fixes FLAC playback on iPod
Very good news. I use Rockbox on my H340, and like it. Hopefully this development will also spur the creation of a color GUI, or at least something more than the 1 bit black and white Rockbox currently uses.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=360455")
Playing Howlin' Wolf while writing this with Rockbox on H340 with full color GUI. 24 bit color BMP support and BMP transparency just implemented in the "H300 Optimized" release. Get it [a href="http://www.misticriver.net/showthread.php?t=35654]here[/url]. Not that color is very important to me, but it's there already, and more seems to be coming along... Nicest in switching from iRiver are getting gapless, replaygain-from-tags (not from ape2 tags on mp3 yet, but works fine with Vorbis, Musepack, Wavpack and FLAC), additional support for Musepack, Wavpack and FLAC, superfast booting....... Most negative are shorter battery life, but that will be worked on, they say...
I might need to sell my H140, if the Ipod port gains enough momentum.
One question: Does the ipod have line in?
now if they would just get MPC support Id be in heaven
If they could get it running on the mini anytime soon I'd probably spooge my pants. I want gapless and non-skipping so bad. MPC would be nice as well.
One question: Does the ipod have line in?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360463"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The headphone jack can double as a microphone/line input jack. The dock connector also does have pins for a Line input, although I'm not aware of any accessories that use it as such.
Why is everybody so big on Rockbox, BTW? After looking at it, it looks far less advanced than the default iPod firmware, to me. Am I missing something? I mean, yes, clearly it's better than a lot of other default player interfaces, but one of the best things about the iPod is the well designed and functional interface. Rockbox doesn't even appear to come close to that sort of thing.
i could care less for aesthetics. Rockbox is easy to use, works as external USB drive for fast transferring, and plays back gaplessly, has replaygain support, and supports many more file types than the ipod firmware.
Rockbox is made to be a damn good audio player firmware, not a "hip" item that only has basic music playing abilities.
i could care less for aesthetics.
I really wasn't talking about aesthetics.
Rockbox is easy to use, works as external USB drive for fast transferring, and plays back gaplessly, has replaygain support, and supports many more file types than the ipod firmware.
External USB drive = So does the iPod, and without any drivers on the PC.
Gapless = I really don't need it, although I realize many people disagree with this assessment. It would be nice, but it's not really necessary.
ReplayGain = The iPod firmware has it too, in the form of SoundCheck (foo_pod actually uses real ReplayGain info in there instead).
File Types = If it plays my files, why would I care that it can play a dozen other types? I have MP3 and AAC files, and both can play those, right?
Rockbox is made to be a damn good audio player firmware, not a "hip" item that only has basic music playing abilities.
The problem is that I'm not seeing where Rockbox is any better than the iPod at playing my music. It seems to lack realtime rule-based dynamic playlist support, for one thing. That's a deal breaker for me, personally, as nearly all my music is played back via Smart Playlists on the iPod firmware.
My point is that most of the features I see in Rockbox have very little to do with playing back music at all. File Management, several games, recording, a text file reader, custom font support, screensavers... None of these seem oriented at music playback or management. It has very basic playlist support, lots of extraneous format support, weird stuff like "speaking menus" (which I admit is cool), but in the end it doesn't seem to be any better at playing music than the iPod is by default. In fact, it lacks many important features that I use a lot. And yes, the interface for Rockbox is nowhere near advanced as the iPod's is, for the specific purpose of selecting and playing back music. If I want to play a whole artist, or album, or genre, or even my favorite tunes that I have not listened to in the last 2 weeks, these are just a couple button presses away on the iPod.
Like I said, I agree than Rockbox is far better than the Archos or iRiver firmware, for example, but it really doesn't seem to offer a lot when stacked up against the iPod firmware. One big benefit is that it is open sourced, and so it one day might be up to par, but I'm not seeing it at the moment, that's all.
Oh, and the goal of my original post was not to cause controversy or troll or anything like that, I was kinda hoping somebody could point out something I was missing, like some cool must-have feature that the iPod lacks normally.
Not many people would try to argue that the iTunes/iPod combination is easy to use and meets the DAP needs of a lot of people.
The intention of the Rockbox port to the iPod is not to try and improve upon that combination and to convince all existing iPod users to switch to Rockbox. I think it will appeal to either existing Rockbox users looking to upgrade to a newer player, to new Rockbox users looking for an easily available player that Rockbox can run on, or for those iPod owners who are either not satisfied with the functionality of Apple's firmware, or do not wish to use iTunes (or a third-party equivalent) to transfer their music to their player.
You're right in that you can access the disk in your iPod without drivers from your PC - but the Apple firmware will not play any music files that you transfer in that way. Rockbox will.
As for the Rockbox UI - Rockbox was originally developed for small black and white LCDs where screen real-estate is valuable. The UI was designed to display the maximum amount of information in the smallest amount of screen space.
It is only in the last few months that Rockbox has been running on devices (iriver H300, iPods) with large colour LCDs. Work has started on adapting the UI to make full use of that potential, but it is only in the very early stages. The actual music playback functionality on these players has obviously been a much higher priority.
Rockbox is designed to play music files back from the filesystem - the recommended way to organise your music is in a simple Artist/Album directory structure. Simply clicking on one track in a folder will play that whole folder. If you don't organise your music this way, then you'll find Rockbox very inconvenient.
Work is in progress on a "tag database" system for Rockbox that will require no software on your PC to use - the database will be created and updated by Rockbox itself running on the player. This is when you'll start to see rule-based dynamic playlist functionality appearing. This system should also "unify" any music you have transfered to your iPod using iTunes and music you have "dragged and dropped" directly onto your ipod's hard drive.
But constructive criticism of Rockbox is always welcome - please submit feature requests via the link on the Rockbox home page.
Flac is working now, and also the port for the H140 is under heavy development. Since the H140 is way better than the iPod, don't sell it unfortunateson. As For the Ugly Gui, Rockbox now support's 24bit bitmap's. Some screeny's of the H300
With Rockbox you can full customize your WPS, to whatever way you please, it's very similar to Foobar with Columns UI.
(snip)
Oh, and the goal of my original post was not to cause controversy or troll or anything like that, I was kinda hoping somebody could point out something I was missing, like some cool must-have feature that the iPod lacks normally.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360512"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well it's more about being able to have a DAP that can conform to how you've been using music on your PC, rather than the other way around. I've been playing round with ogg, aac, LAME, wavpack etc on my pc and it was just damn nice to get a DAP that I could simply treat like an extension of that (a rockboxed iriver h120).
If I got an iPod and there were no rockbox for it, then sure, there are good workarounds to transcode (etc) the non-playable files into something Apple thinks I should've be using in the first place. But it's at least nice to have the alternative to simply dump your files of whatever format on the thing and just have it (via alternative firmware) play them.
Rockbox for iPod will matter little for people who've already set themselves up to use the formats that Apple has benighted, or who've got the CPU time to transcode etc via your own excellent foobar component. If you've already conformed yourself to Apple's choices then rockbox offers you nothing new and then fine, don't use it. But it's a great boon to first-time DAP owners like me who just want a DAP that will do everything that it's CPU makes it capable of doing. Apple chose to constrain the iPod's capabilities for commercial reasons. It's nice to free the thing up if that better suits your existing habits.
Other points:
1) it's not a choice between Apple and Rockbox firmware; the rockbox bootloaders make it a dual-boot system. (though the iPod native database format and Rockbox's directory-based filing approach are incompatible, to be sure)
2) the new GUI features are in it's early stages, there wasn't even colour support until a month or two ago. it's early early early alpha days, so it's far to early to make any comparisons about this.
3) you're completely correct about smart playlists. iPod users who are used to them will miss them. But again it's early days for the iPod port, and I'd bet good money that someone who misses them (but likes everything else about Rockbox) will come up with something similar before the end of this year.
Basically, satisfied iPod users shouldn't be overly excited by Rockbox, and Rockbox enthusiasts should be mindful of this. But personally I now know my next DAP will probably be an iPod, because now I can change it to suit me. To each their own.
Read here how to install Rockbox on your iPod
http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/IpodInstallation (http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/IpodInstallation)
See my iPod playing FLACs
http://img494.imageshack.us/img494/6522/p10002780qv.jpg (http://img494.imageshack.us/img494/6522/p10002780qv.jpg)
Well, i installed it on my nano...
it crashed on wrapped aac, dident try raw aac
it plays mp3 fine
it reads mpc's but doesn't play them yet
couldn't get volume to work
doesn't read the battery life
for my main reason for installing it, gapless playback is MUCH better than the apple firmware but not perfect, there is still a VERY small delay and click.
Also the fact you can just drop music in to folder on the device is ACE!!!! no more plugins for fobar, or iTunes
It looks very promising though, i'll keep up to date with it.
There was an error in the install guide though.
At stages when it says:
ipodpatcher -r bootpartition.bin N
it should be:
ipodpatcher N -r bootpartition.bin
Cheers,
Kristian
Well, i installed it on my nano...
it crashed on wrapped aac, dident try raw aac
it plays mp3 fine
it reads mpc's but doesn't play them yet
Yes, only AAC encoded by iTunes is working at the moment. The mp4 parser needs improving to correctly handle other encoders such as Nero.
There was a bug with musepack, but that's now been fixed. Musepack support is now working fine in the latest "bleeding-edge" build on the Rockbox site. Vorbis and FLAC have also been fixed, so it's now only ALAC which isn't usable.
couldn't get volume to work
doesn't read the battery life
Yes, sound settings and battery status are not implemented yet.
for my main reason for installing it, gapless playback is MUCH better than the apple firmware but not perfect, there is still a VERY small delay and click.
MP3 gapless still isn't perfect - I'm assuming it was MP3 files you tested? Other formats should be fine (apart from AAC, which has the same problems as MP3).
There was an error in the install guide though.
Good spot, thanks for reporting it. It's now been fixed.
Dave.
Hi,
Correct, with regards to gapless playback, it was a lame 3.96 encoded mp3 from my collection. Still better than the origonal firmware though, will it improve even more in the futre or is this as good as its likely to get?
I got the bleeding edge earlier today, and musepack wasn't working, I'll try again tomorrow with another update, hopefully it should all be fine then.
Cheers,
Kristian
FINALLY! :-D
Hi,
Correct, with regards to gapless playback, it was a lame 3.96 encoded mp3 from my collection. Still better than the origonal firmware though, will it improve even more in the futre or is this as good as its likely to get?
This is a general Rockbox issue (affecting all players), and it's high on lots of people's priorities. We definitely hope we can improve it in the future.
I got the bleeding edge earlier today, and musepack wasn't working, I'll try again tomorrow with another update, hopefully it should all be fine then.
The Musepack fix was committed to Rockbox CVS at 17.06 GMT today - so any bleeding edge build after that (including the one available now) contains working Musepack playback for the iPod.
Dave.
one question: how are the files accessed, by folder-strucutre or by database? - I'd choose a database over directories.
one question: how are the files accessed, by folder-strucutre or by database? - I'd choose a database over directories.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360596"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Rockbox does have a tag database, but it's been neglected over recent months. I've never looked at it, but I believe some people are using it successfully. However, efforts in that direction seem to have picked up recently, so maybe that area of Rockbox will be improved.
But for now, the only reliable way to play back your music is via directories and "static" playlists.
I just downloaded the lastest version, and can confirm mpc plays back fine Haven't tried a gapless test on mpc yet though.
Cheers,
Kristian
/EDIT
Just tried gapless mpc, there is a VERY small click during change, but no gap at all, excellent! Seeking isn't working with mpc at the moment though. Regardless, its still in early development, but i can see great things coming from this
Wow, this is good news indeed. Hopefully I'll be able to test this on my 5G video ipod soon (as audio playback isn't funtional yet on the 5G ipods, AFAIK).
Kritip:
There was a bug that would cause mpc playback to sometimes become corrupt during track changes, and this would add [sometimes loud] noise until playback was restarted. I fixed this, however in the process I also discovered that the first and last frames in mpc files were sometimes still not being decoded correctly, and this will sometimes produce a click. Unfortunately, I haven't had any time to look into this further (and mpc is now usable, at least).
Dave:
First, thanks for all your hard work on this!
I tried to install RockBox on my very new Nano and ran into the problem that your program would not find my Nano. I grabbed your source and recompiled it to dump the unrecognized sector to disk. I found that the text "iPod" was actually at decimal offset 83 instead of 71. I uploaded a text dump here:
www.wavpack.com/sector.txt (http://www.wavpack.com/sector.txt)
Should I just change the constant and be on my merry way? Is that safe, or do you want to have a look first? I suspect the newness of my Nano to be the culprit. Perhaps a bounded search would be better...?
Thanks again,
David
@bryant
Just curious, what version firmware does your nano have? I have 1.1 installed on mine. Also how many times did you search for it, ie. how many numbers high did you go. Mine was found at number 7!
KRistian
//edit
Version 1.1 is still he latest according to here: http://www.apple.com/ipod/download/ (http://www.apple.com/ipod/download/). This is what i updated with, maybe if you updated with the same updater? If you are already are at 1.1 there are several tools to allow you to reload the same version using apples updater. ie. iHack or iPodWizard both found here: http://www.ipodwizard.net/cmps_index.php (http://www.ipodwizard.net/cmps_index.php)
@bryant
Just curious, what version firmware does your nano have? I have 1.1 installed on mine. Also how many times did you search for it, ie. how many numbers high did you go. Mine was found at number 7!
KRistian
//edit
Version 1.1 is still he latest according to here: http://www.apple.com/ipod/download/ (http://www.apple.com/ipod/download/). This is what i updated with, maybe if you updated with the same updater? If you are already are at 1.1 there are several tools to allow you to reload the same version using apples updater. ie. iHack or iPodWizard both found here: http://www.ipodwizard.net/cmps_index.php (http://www.ipodwizard.net/cmps_index.php)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360617"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ah, I'm still at 1.0! I'll load 1.1 and see if it helps. Thanks!
I tried to install RockBox on my very new Nano and ran into the problem that your program would not find my Nano. I grabbed your source and recompiled it to dump the unrecognized sector to disk. I found that the text "iPod" was actually at decimal offset 83 instead of 71. I uploaded a text dump here:
www.wavpack.com/sector.txt (http://www.wavpack.com/sector.txt)
Should I just change the constant and be on my merry way? Is that safe, or do you want to have a look first? I suspect the newness of my Nano to be the culprit. Perhaps a bounded search would be better...?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360616"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's a completely different boot sector to other ipods I've seen - mine (a 60GB iPod Color) is as follows:
0000000: eb58 904d 5344 4f53 352e 3002 0008 0002 .X.MSDOS5.0.....
0000010: 0200 0000 00f8 0000 3f00 ff00 0000 0000 ........?.......
0000020: 807c fc06 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 .|..............
0000030: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 ................
0000040: 0200 2952 368b a869 506f 6400 4d45 2020 ..)R6..iPod.ME
0000050: 2020 4641 5433 3220 2020 33c9 8ed1 bcf4 FAT32 3.....
0000060: 7b8e c18e d9bd 007c 884e 028a 5640 b408 {......|.N..V@..
You should be able to safely disable that check (or change the constant) and continue on your merry way. I would be interested to know how you got on.
Considering how different your boot sector is, I think I'll just add an || and check for either the "original" iPod string, or your example - assuming you don't run into any other problems.
Thanks,
Dave.
Great, thanks for the effort!
Are both displays of the ipod color supported?
I have an ipod color and have a scrolling menu in rockbox, and odd colors in apple firmware.
EDIT: rephrasing
thanks
.zamel
So, today I've played an .ogg-file on my iPod Color. That is so brilliant. But my display was all messed up so I had to give it up.
After I installed the bootloader and the system defaulted into apples firmware, my display looked like 4-bit color or something. It looked normal when the background light came off. Then I installed rockbox and booted it and I have display problems there too. The menu don't stay still, it scrolls down the display...
Is it me or is my ipod not supported yet?
.zamel
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=360623")
There are two types of LCD in the iPod Color/Photo - the Rockbox LCD driver for the first type of LCD has not been tested by any Rockbox developer, so it's possible that either bugs in that driver are the cause of your problems, or Rockbox is not correctly detecting your type of LCD.
If you have some time for testing, come over to #rockbox on IRC - details (and a web client) are here:
[a href="http://www.rockbox.org/irc/]http://www.rockbox.org/irc/[/url]
(edited to correct URL)
Thanks for your quick answer Dave, I see I didn't need to rephrase :-). I'll be happy to do some testing. I'll try to stop by tomorrow (it's really late where I live).
.zamel
wow, the Ipod Nano is finally looking viable with this latest development...
That's a completely different boot sector to other ipods I've seen - mine (a 60GB iPod Color) is as follows:
0000000: eb58 904d 5344 4f53 352e 3002 0008 0002 .X.MSDOS5.0.....
0000010: 0200 0000 00f8 0000 3f00 ff00 0000 0000 ........?.......
0000020: 807c fc06 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 .|..............
0000030: 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 ................
0000040: 0200 2952 368b a869 506f 6400 4d45 2020 ..)R6..iPod.ME
0000050: 2020 4641 5433 3220 2020 33c9 8ed1 bcf4 FAT32 3.....
0000060: 7b8e c18e d9bd 007c 884e 028a 5640 b408 {......|.N..V@..
You should be able to safely disable that check (or change the constant) and continue on your merry way. I would be interested to know how you got on.
Considering how different your boot sector is, I think I'll just add an || and check for either the "original" iPod string, or your example - assuming you don't run into any other problems.
Thanks,
Dave.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360622"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I updated to 1.1 firmware and now my boot sector is identical to what you show here.
Funny, the problem was not that my Nano was too
new, but too
old! I don't particularly want to take the risk of going back to 1.0 and trying again (and, in fact, I wouldn't really know how). Probably the safest thing would be to leave your program the way it is and force people to have recent firmware installed.
Thanks again!
First someone gets MPC to work on a portable, and now theres actually a few people interested enough to work on the decoder. I think hell just froze over.
Are there any plans to support older iPods? ie. the 4G? From what I've seen on the site their hardware is almost the same as the iPod photo, just without the colour LCD. It would be great to have alternative firmware to use as apple abandons support for these older iPods (I realise most people manage to break them quite quickly, but mine's still relatively unscathed )
Are there any plans to support older iPods? ie. the 4G?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360662"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As a matter of fact, we have someone working on a port to the 3G iPods right now. Last I heard, the LCD driver was being worked on.
I updated to 1.1 firmware and now my boot sector is identical to what you show here.
Funny, the problem was not that my Nano was too new, but too old!
I don't particularly want to take the risk of going back to 1.0 and trying again (and, in fact, I wouldn't really know how). Probably the safest thing would be to leave your program the way it is and force people to have recent firmware installed.
Thanks again!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360643"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Someone else reported the same boot sector as you on her Nano, so I decided to add a check for either boot sector signature. It seems to work fine, so I've released a new version of ipodpatcher.
Thanks for the feedback and I look forward to seeing those ARM optimisations for WavPack.
Dave.
Thanks for the feedback and I look forward to seeing those ARM optimisations for WavPack.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360672"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yeah, I see that the "high" mode WavPack files don't quite make it on the Nano yet...
I'm in the process of switching to Ubuntu, so I'll bug you guys soon if I have trouble building the tools. Maybe I'll even try IRC because I already have a client installed (except you're usually all asleep when I'm working!)
David
Rockbox does have a tag database, but it's been neglected over recent months. I've never looked at it, but I believe some people are using it successfully. However, efforts in that direction seem to have picked up recently, so maybe that area of Rockbox will be improved.
But for now, the only reliable way to play back your music is via directories and "static" playlists.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360600"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If ya'll need some help with that, let me know. I wrote a large part of the iTunesDB entry on the iPodLinux wiki, maybe it would be possible to make the thing capable of reading the normal iPod database (thus making it iTunes compatible... as long as the normal iPod folder structure remains on the thing, iTunes won't know the difference).
Glad the updater is sorted now and works with both software versions.
Just thought i'd update that i've tested vorbis, using the Lancer Vorbis Compiles (http://homepage3.nifty.com/blacksword/) and playback is absolutly faultless on transitions. Gapless playback is perfect which is fantastic news
High encoding speed, best quality at 128kbps (http://www.maresweb.de/listening-tests/mf-128-1/results.htm) and pure gapless support. Vorbis and the nano, are now my two best friends. Sadly, looks like it time to re-encode my 100G FLAC collection to vorbis
Cheers and keep up the good work!
Kristian
Are there any plans to support older iPods? ie. the 4G?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360662"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As a matter of fact, we have someone working on a port to the 3G iPods right now. Last I heard, the LCD driver was being worked on.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360667"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Cool, maybe I'll check it out, have a 3G model myself.
. . . and pure gapless support. Vorbis and the nano, are now my two best friends. Sadly, looks like it time to re-encode my 100G FLAC collection to vorbis
Kristian
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360720"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Realy great news! What about gain support?
Realy great news! What about gain support?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360728"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As in ReplayGain? I didn't check to be honest, as the volume control doesn't work yet, it doesn't matter too much I'll check later on though anyway.
Kristian
Realy great news! What about gain support?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360728"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As in ReplayGain? I didn't check to be honest, as the volume control doesn't work yet, it doesn't matter too much I'll check later on though anyway.
Kristian
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360732"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Rockbox does support replaygain (track or album). I am not sure though if it's implemented on the ipod.
Rockbox does support replaygain (track or album). I am not sure though if it's implemented on the ipod.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360754"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
it also supports a 'track gain if shuffling mode' (which uses album gain otherwise) which is along with 'crossfade when shuffling' pure genius. even foobar doesn't have that
There seems to be some ambiguity as to whether sound is supported on the 5g video ipod. Can anyone confirm it working? I've got 1 1/2 hours to decide whether to run to Dixons and buy one so I can play my mpc files on it
There seems to be some ambiguity as to whether sound is supported on the 5g video ipod. Can anyone confirm it working? I've got 1 1/2 hours to decide whether to run to Dixons and buy one so I can play my mpc files on it
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360766"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nope, there is no sound driver for the Video iPod (5g) at this time. I think we're all waiting for the iPod Linux team to crack this one.
Nano and 4g iPods do have working sound.
There seems to be some ambiguity as to whether sound is supported on the 5g video ipod. Can anyone confirm it working? I've got 1 1/2 hours to decide whether to run to Dixons and buy one so I can play my mpc files on it
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360766"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
5G is Video, right?
No, it doesn't work yet. But it will, I'm sure.
BTW, shouldn't this be on the News section?
Realy great news! What about gain support?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360728"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As in ReplayGain? I didn't check to be honest, as the volume control doesn't work yet, it doesn't matter too much I'll check later on though anyway.
Kristian
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360732"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Rockbox does support replaygain (track or album). I am not sure though if it's implemented on the ipod.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360754"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Its implemented (and working) on the Ipod simulator at least, so I think it will work on the real thing.
Great news! Great news indeed!
I have added "Apple iPod with Rockbox firmware" in the list of supporting DAPs in the HA wiki for FLAC (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=FLAC) and Vorbis (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Ogg_Vorbis).
The Musepack (MPC) (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=MPC) page however does not (yet) have a section on "Supporting DAPs" so I haven't added it there sorry. Please, MPC fans, update the page
OT: The Rockbox page in the HA wiki (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Rockbox&action=edit) is still empty. Care for some write-up?
EDIT: Added info of this development in the HA wiki page for Apple iPod (http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Apple_iPod).
Glad the updater is sorted now and works with both software versions.
Just thought i'd update that i've tested vorbis, using the Lancer Vorbis Compiles (http://homepage3.nifty.com/blacksword/) and playback is absolutly faultless on transitions. Gapless playback is perfect which is fantastic news
High encoding speed, best quality at 128kbps (http://www.maresweb.de/listening-tests/mf-128-1/results.htm) and pure gapless support. Vorbis and the nano, are now my two best friends. Sadly, looks like it time to re-encode my 100G FLAC collection to vorbis
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360720"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm drooling over here.
im happier with my desicion (http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=40885&st=50#) now
don't rub it in...the ever-diminishing, nonreplaceable internal battery is still the suck.
hehe
don't rub it in...the ever-diminishing, nonreplaceable internal battery is still the suck.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360843"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Its not hard to replace the battery. You can buy kits for ~30 bucks online or pay Apple to do it for you.
Great, thanks for the effort!
Are both displays of the ipod color supported?
I have an ipod color and have a scrolling menu in rockbox, and odd colors in apple firmware.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360623"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have hopefully found and fixed that problem.
You'll need to download a new "bootloader-color.bin" bootloader from the iPod Installation page in the Rockbox wiki, and install it. You'll also need to upgrade your version of Rockbox itself to the latest "bleeding edge" build (which is building as I write this message).
Dave.
don't rub it in...the ever-diminishing, nonreplaceable internal battery is still the suck.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360843"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Its not hard to replace the battery. You can buy kits for ~30 bucks online or pay Apple to do it for you.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360886"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yea, I was aware Apple would do it and neither of those options are ideal but are better than nothing. I prefer removable rechargeable batteries like in the Iaudio 5, which I've had for a year. Still, getting 3 times more the space with one of these puppies is tempting. What are peoples' experience with playback time? Also, I've heard reports that the unit lacks in bass response but that's just a solitary piece of anecdotal evidence that I've seen (maybe they had a bunk unit or bad headphones). Any thoughts on these issues from you owners?
Not sure what Apple's default action is on battery replacements, but from my (limited) experience all iPods that have gone in for 'battery replacement' have literally just been replaced.
Just thought i'd update that i've tested vorbis, using the Lancer Vorbis Compiles (http://homepage3.nifty.com/blacksword/) and playback is absolutly faultless on transitions. Gapless playback is perfect which is fantastic news [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360720"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My wife has an iPod, and lack of gapless is one of the big drawbacks. The Vorbis news is interesting, but experience with Vorbis on my Rio Karma is that it consumes battery power very quickly (due I understand to high CPU usage on decode), so I don't think this is going to be a practical solution for her.
So what would *really* be nice would be perfect gapless playback of suitably encoded MP3s (ie. ones with the additional LAME tags giving the accurate length data). Now, I see that it has been reported that this is almost working on Rockbox, but there's still a click. Is there any prospect that perfect gapless MP3 (ie. on a par with the Rio Karma) is likely to be achieved?
The above post leads to another question for those who have Rockbox on your Nanos; how many hours of operating time were you able to achieve with Ogg playback? Perhaps it's premature to compare it with such an early release but would like to know before purchasing one of these.
The above post leads to another question for those who have Rockbox on your Nanos; how many hours of operating time were you able to achieve with Ogg playback? Perhaps it's premature to compare it with such an early release but would like to know before purchasing one of these.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=360950")
[a href="http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/IpodRuntime]http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/IpodRuntime[/url]
looks like bare 8 hours so far... how much do you get from aac on the stock firmware? 14 hours are advertized so i guess 10 - 12?
Just thought i'd update that i've tested vorbis, using the Lancer Vorbis Compiles (http://homepage3.nifty.com/blacksword/) and playback is absolutly faultless on transitions. Gapless playback is perfect which is fantastic news [a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360720"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
My wife has an iPod, and lack of gapless is one of the big drawbacks. The Vorbis news is interesting, but experience with Vorbis on my Rio Karma is that it consumes battery power very quickly (due I understand to high CPU usage on decode), so I don't think this is going to be a practical solution for her.
So what would *really* be nice would be perfect gapless playback of suitably encoded MP3s (ie. ones with the additional LAME tags giving the accurate length data). Now, I see that it has been reported that this is almost working on Rockbox, but there's still a click. Is there any prospect that perfect gapless MP3 (ie. on a par with the Rio Karma) is likely to be achieved?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360949"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As far as I know gapless playback is perfect for LAME mp3s but seeking breaks it. Not sure though...
Don't put too much into Rockbox runtimes on iPod so far. Though in a working state, the port is still in its early stages. The iPod CPU still runs at full throttle the entire time and uses a lot more power than it needs to.
Don't put too much into Rockbox runtimes on iPod so far. Though in a working state, the port is still in its early stages. The iPod CPU still runs at full throttle the entire time and uses a lot more power than it needs to.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=361000"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Can Rockbox be installed on a B&W display 4G?
Don't put too much into Rockbox runtimes on iPod so far. Though in a working state, the port is still in its early stages. The iPod CPU still runs at full throttle the entire time and uses a lot more power than it needs to.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=361000"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Can Rockbox be installed on a B&W display 4G?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=361016"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not at the moment. The only difference between the 4G Photo/Color and the 4G B&W is the LCD - we know exactly what is needed to be done, but there is no developer working on it at the moment.
However, we do have someone working on supporting the 3G B&W - and the LCD driver for that iPod will be 95% of the work needed to support the 4G B&W.
Anyone willing to help is more than welcome...
1. If you guys could remove any static hiss (audible with high sensitivity headphones/IEMs) from the headphone out, that would be awesome.
2. Custom EQ!!!
3. Better battery life (if possible)
Anyone who can implement these will be a super hero!
Will the iPod Shuffle be supported by this project? I'd love to have gapless AAC/MP3 support. I figure it might be pretty easy to handle the shuffle, since there's no video driver to worry about.
Will the iPod Shuffle be supported by this project? I'd love to have gapless AAC/MP3 support. I figure it might be pretty easy to handle the shuffle, since there's no video driver to worry about.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=361044"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The iPod Shuffle is a completely different device with completely different hardware to all the other iPods. The only thing it shares with other ipods is the name. There are no plans to support it in Rockbox.
Great, thanks for the effort!
Are both displays of the ipod color supported?
I have an ipod color and have a scrolling menu in rockbox, and odd colors in apple firmware.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360623"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have hopefully found and fixed that problem.
You'll need to download a new "bootloader-color.bin" bootloader from the iPod Installation page in the Rockbox wiki, and install it. You'll also need to upgrade your version of Rockbox itself to the latest "bleeding edge" build (which is building as I write this message).
Dave.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360893"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Awesome! The problem is solved. The screen is OK.
Now I just have to engrave "I can play gapless vorbis on my ipod" on the back.
Fantastic!
Many thanks!
.zamel
EDIT: Just had to edit...
Does rockbox work at all with the Alpine KCA-420i iPod adaptor?
The above post leads to another question for those who have Rockbox on your Nanos; how many hours of operating time were you able to achieve with Ogg playback? Perhaps it's premature to compare it with such an early release but would like to know before purchasing one of these.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=360950")
[a href="http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/IpodRuntime]http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/IpodRuntime[/url]
looks like bare 8 hours so far... how much do you get from aac on the stock firmware? 14 hours are advertized so i guess 10 - 12?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360952"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
iPods tend to run for longer than Apple claims (at least within the first 6 months) so it would be closer to 15 or 16 hours. It really depends how much you play with it while it's playing music, what sort of headphones it's driving, and (if using a HD based player) whether you skip around tracks a lot.
Well, got one of the black 4GBs just in time for my birthday...impressive. Is it just a setting misconfiguration or is the sound supposed to cut out on alternative navigation functions? I have to push play/pause, fast forward, rewind, etc. a second time to get the sound back on both ogg and mpc files. This is firmware from 2/1/06.
Well, got one of the black 4GBs just in time for my birthday...impressive. Is it just a setting misconfiguration or is the sound supposed to cut out on alternative navigation functions? I have to push play/pause, fast forward, rewind, etc. a second time to get the sound back on both ogg and mpc files. This is firmware from 2/1/06.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=361315"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's just a bug. It will hopefully be squashed soon...
Is there any news on how the 5G audio driver is advancing? How long did other rockbox developments last? A few years before becoming stable? or less than that? If I read correctly, Rockbox on Ipod has only been in dev for a month now -- The dev' speed is just impressive : is there an ETA on a more functional version?
Thanks (and sorry, if you get this all the time)
Shade
Is there any news on how the 5G audio driver is advancing? How long did other rockbox developments last? A few years before becoming stable? or less than that? If I read correctly, Rockbox on Ipod has only been in dev for a month now -- The dev' speed is just impressive : is there an ETA on a more functional version?
Thanks (and sorry, if you get this all the time)
Shade
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=361320"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Since no one knows how the 5G audio works, I'd guess it'll be available a few weeks after someone reverse engineers it and tells a Rockbox developer how it works.
One thing I've been wondering about the 5G audio. Doesn't the PP5022 provide the DAC ? What makes the 5022 on the Nano different then the 5G?
Is there any news on how the 5G audio driver is advancing? How long did other rockbox developments last? A few years before becoming stable? or less than that? If I read correctly, Rockbox on Ipod has only been in dev for a month now -- The dev' speed is just impressive : is there an ETA on a more functional version?
Thanks (and sorry, if you get this all the time)
Shade
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=361320")
As far as I know, no-one from Rockbox is working on a 5g audio driver. Maybe some people from the ipodlinux project are, and if they release an audio driver for ipodlinux, then I'm sure it will quickly be ported over to Rockbox.
New versions of Rockbox with new features or bug fixes are created almost hourly - every time someone commits a source code change to the Rockbox CVS. Recent CVS activity is displayed on the Rockbox home page:
[a href="http://www.rockbox.org/]http://www.rockbox.org/[/url]
It's impossible to predict when things will happen in Rockbox - individual developers do what interests them, when they have the time and motivation to do it.
Just a quick question.
Have volume control and battery readout been fixed yet?
I tried it and nearly blew out my eardrums!!! It's not actually in a useable state for listening with good IEMs because of the volume. It also switched off with an empty battery warning even though it's full.
Keep up the good work! I'm really looking forward to gapless playback.
Oh and one point why do they not use the select button for accessing submenus like the apple firmware? Just makes sense to use the same control.
Ta
Just a quick question.
Have volume control and battery readout been fixed yet?
I tried it and nearly blew out my eardrums!!! It's not actually in a useable state for listening with good IEMs because of the volume. It also switched off with an empty battery warning even though it's full.
Keep up the good work! I'm really looking forward to gapless playback.
Oh and one point why do they not use the select button for accessing submenus like the apple firmware? Just makes sense to use the same control.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=361440"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Volume (and bass/treble) control was implemented a few days ago. Battery status isn't.
The select key should now (as of a few minutes ago) work as expected - that was a bug that I just never got around to fixing.
The "empty battery" warning is there constantly. Your ipod probably turned itself off due to the Rockbox "idle power-off" function, which will turn off your player after a configurable period of inactivity (i.e. no music playing, and no buttons being pressed).
Volume (and bass/treble) control was implemented a few days ago. Battery status isn't.
The select key should now (as of a few minutes ago) work as expected - that was a bug that I just never got around to fixing.
The "empty battery" warning is there constantly. Your ipod probably turned itself off due to the Rockbox "idle power-off" function, which will turn off your player after a configurable period of inactivity (i.e. no music playing, and no buttons being pressed).
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=361461"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sweet I'll give this another go at the weekend! Really looking foward to testing out sound quality differences between my MP3s and FLAC through my UM-2s
Like I said, I agree than Rockbox is far better than the Archos or iRiver firmware, for example, but it really doesn't seem to offer a lot when stacked up against the iPod firmware. One big benefit is that it is open sourced, and so it one day might be up to par, but I'm not seeing it at the moment, that's all.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360512"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You've hit the nail on the head in that post Otto42. I only quoted a bit of it but I agree.
I have an H140 with Rockbox collecting dust which I had solely to keep an eye on Rockbox development, and use an iPod daily for my listening needs. Apart from gapless implementations which is considered as crucial by many (I don't, since the vast majority of my music is fine with gaps), there's nothing of huge importance that Rockbox offers which on aggregate is better than the iPod/iTunes combo for someone who simply wants to listen to music without their player getting in the way. If anything, Rockbox implementation on the iPod if it remains faithful to other platforms will ensure that the iPod
does get in the way.
Rockbox is for the geek... the sort of person who enjoys working problems out of their gadgets, especially at it's current stage of development. Still, I'm all for it as it'll keep the iRiver-uber-alles crowd quiet for a while
Apart from gapless implementations which is considered as crucial by many (I don't, since the vast majority of my music is fine with gaps), there's nothing of huge importance that Rockbox offers which on aggregate is better than the iPod/iTunes combo for someone who simply wants to listen to music without their player getting in the way.
I really dont agree with you. First of all the windows explorer drag'n'drop of files is much easier than having to install iTunes (I'm a fb2k user). Gapless is important since I have a lot of live albums, also I often used Musepack as the encoder since it gives the best size/quality ratio for me. So in fact Rockbox gives you the possibility to use the codecs you like, to adjust the sound (bass, treble, parametric eq) just the way you want it, to choose what information on the song will be displayed etc. Not to mention that Rockbox is much more open to suggestions, and all of them get implemented relativly fast.
So as I see it: as soon as the the new firmware becomes stable it will be THE solution for people wanting the most out of their digital music. Original iTunes centered firmware will remain the best for n00bs, people who use iTunes as the default player and the iTunes store, and lastly, for those who don't have time and/or lack the will to mess with basic settings. Theese are mostly the same differences as in beetven foobar and Winamp users...
Can't wait for Rockbox to finally start supporting grayscale 4G!
Like I said, I agree than Rockbox is far better than the Archos or iRiver firmware, for example, but it really doesn't seem to offer a lot when stacked up against the iPod firmware. One big benefit is that it is open sourced, and so it one day might be up to par, but I'm not seeing it at the moment, that's all.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=360512"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You've hit the nail on the head in that post Otto42. I only quoted a bit of it but I agree.
I have an H140 with Rockbox collecting dust which I had solely to keep an eye on Rockbox development, and use an iPod daily for my listening needs. Apart from gapless implementations which is considered as crucial by many (I don't, since the vast majority of my music is fine with gaps), there's nothing of huge importance that Rockbox offers which on aggregate is better than the iPod/iTunes combo for someone who simply wants to listen to music without their player getting in the way. If anything, Rockbox implementation on the iPod if it remains faithful to other platforms will ensure that the iPod does get in the way.
Rockbox is for the geek... the sort of person who enjoys working problems out of their gadgets, especially at it's current stage of development. Still, I'm all for it as it'll keep the iRiver-uber-alles crowd quiet for a while
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=361556"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is a bit baiting. Yes, 'geeks' will like Rockbox, but so will anyone else who has use for the Rockbox-specific features (gapless, crossfade, crossfeed, plugins, on-the-fly playlists, folder-hierachy, wv, flac, mpc, ogg, etc) but not for the iPod specific features. I don't see the point in dismissively saying 'rockbox is for geeks' if you've already conceeded that it has features that the non-geek might want (eg playing gapless or cross-fade party-mixes etc).
You say you don't want these features and that the iPod/iTunes combo has everything you want, so all power to you and I'm glad you're happy. But for those who want more, it's the iPod/iTunes combo that "gets in the way" -- in the way of what they want their DAP to do. No-one's forcing you to install Rockbox, so if you honestly have no personal interest in it, why post in this thread? Some people have use for Rockbox-on-iPod, and that alone is justification for it.
also I often used Musepack as the encoder since it gives the best size/quality ratio for me.
OT but...Is this really, TRULY the case anymore? I'm tired of seeing this claim in the face of recent leaps in improvement of Vorbis and even AAC...
I realize you postfaced the comment with "for me," so perhaps you came to your conclusion with an ABX test, so fair enough if that's the case.
Apart from gapless implementations which is considered as crucial by many (I don't, since the vast majority of my music is fine with gaps), there's nothing of huge importance that Rockbox offers which on aggregate is better than the iPod/iTunes combo for someone who simply wants to listen to music without their player getting in the way.
I really dont agree with you. First of all the windows explorer drag'n'drop of files is much easier than having to install iTunes (I'm a fb2k user). Gapless is important since I have a lot of live albums, also I often used Musepack as the encoder since it gives the best size/quality ratio for me. So in fact Rockbox gives you the possibility to use the codecs you like, to adjust the sound (bass, treble, parametric eq) just the way you want it, to choose what information on the song will be displayed etc. Not to mention that Rockbox is much more open to suggestions, and all of them get implemented relativly fast.
So as I see it: as soon as the the new firmware becomes stable it will be THE solution for people wanting the most out of their digital music. Original iTunes centered firmware will remain the best for n00bs, people who use iTunes as the default player and the iTunes store, and lastly, for those who don't have time and/or lack the will to mess with basic settings. Theese are mostly the same differences as in beetven foobar and Winamp users...
Can't wait for Rockbox to finally start supporting grayscale 4G!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=361569"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm interested in Rockbox development for the iPod in terms of what sort of look and feel Rockbox will develop as a result of the iPod port. As I said, as long as it remains faithful to the previous ports it'll be a geek's player. Please note that I'm a geek and probably a nerd myself. But I'm a fairly well-off geek with a definite impatience for things which require too much futzing time to get acceptable results. I'm not a "workaround guy" so maybe I'm a pseudo-geek
I don't know if you've got into the involved features of iTunes yet, but I find the automatic syncing and the information passback from iPod to PC pretty much essential in my daily usage pattern of the player... and I'm not unique in that aspect. But more than the individual components, it's how the iTunes/iPod combo works together that's the important bit.
There's no reason that something can't be powerful and well thought out as well as fundamentally easy to use. Foobar is a good example to mention in relation to that: I have used it but abandoned it pretty quickly after going as far as I was prepared to customising it. I use iTunes for syncing, but for home listening I use j.River Media Center. jRMC packs the power of Foobar, but with an accessibility / look&feel that is notably superior. Foobar on the other hand is the Rockbox of PC audio software... optimised by geeks, for geeks.
iTunes / iPod happens to be the best power/feature ratio that I've found at the moment as far as my ultimate goal is concerned, which is to make choosing and loading what I choose from an enormous library as effortless as possible, and also as I said for the player to get in my face as little as possible.
If the Rockbox team forged ahead but gave overall usability a thought and also considered how it interacts with software on the PC, it may deal a considerable boost for the user base of Rockbox.
If the Rockbox team forged ahead but gave overall usability a thought and also considered how it interacts with software on the PC,
I think they designed it from the ground up to work independently of any software on the PC...
If the Rockbox team forged ahead but gave overall usability a thought and also considered how it interacts with software on the PC,
I think they designed it from the ground up to work independently of any software on the PC...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=361599"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just because the player is self-databasing and UMS, it doesn't have to restrict you to using Explorer. All you need is a player identification of some sort (perhaps a file in the root of the player) to stop 'drive-name drift' becoming an issue, and you can create a program which will load the player. It can even be a Foobar Plugin I dare say.
I personally don't see the point of using Explorer via drag & drop once your music library exceeds the capacity of your player. Have you tried picking out a decent selection of music from a 100Gb+ library to load and unload/replace on a regular basis via Explorer drag & drop? Hard work I can tell you. In iTunes, I can scroll through my entire music, select subsets, do searches etc.. all while dragging single or groups of files to the iPod, and if I want creating playlists at the same time. And all that's before Smart Playlists, which wouldn't work properly without the information pass-back from the iPod.
nope, can't say I have tried to pick from a selection that large...music listening is also more arbitrary and not so methodical for me, so the explorer method works well enough. That fact plus the Ogg support (80 kbps has even reached a level of transparency for me, thus enabling me to fit more tune per MB ) and gapless support are the main draws for me, in any case. I've never utilized a database for my music collection...maybe I should see what I'm missing.
Remember iTunes isn't necessary. foopod(?) for f2k and ml_pod for Winamp
I think I'll have to mess with changing the font in Rockbox as it's absolutely tiny on a nano.
OT but...Is this really, TRULY the case anymore? I'm tired of seeing this claim in the face of recent leaps in improvement of Vorbis and even AAC...
I realize you postfaced the comment with "for me," so perhaps you came to your conclusion with an ABX test, so fair enough if that's the case.
And I kinda agree with you, for new encodings I use Vorbis AuTv versions (yet another reason for me wanting to use Rockbox), but I really don't feel like reencoding my old MPC q6 rips.
I did some ABX tests beetven iTunes AAC @ 192 VBR (the highest bitrate it alows for VBR) and the MPC rips to see if I can spot the difference and I got a bit dissapointed when I got 8/8 on a song by Tool. Since the musepack one sounded beter TO ME I decided not to regrab those albums.
I don't know if you've got into the involved features of iTunes yet, but I find the automatic syncing and the information passback from iPod to PC pretty much essential in my daily usage pattern of the player... and I'm not unique in that aspect. But more than the individual components, it's how the iTunes/iPod combo works together that's the important bit.
Well I don't have much use from sync since my library is over a 100gb of audio files and the iPod is only 20gb, so again I drag and drop files into iTunes. I have my folders neatley organised so browsing throught the collection ain't a problem on any player (athough I prefer a tag database, yes). I tried using foopod but it had a lot of issues with the iTunes database so I gave up on it. Did I mention that I dont need Smart playlists that much, and I also think Rockbox has some Dynamic ones wich are created for a given criteria (not apsolutley sure because I saw it for just a little on a iRiver).
jRMC packs the power of Foobar, but with an accessibility / look&feel that is notably superior.
You got my attention, I'm gonna check it out!
I did some ABX tests beetven iTunes AAC @ 192 VBR (the highest bitrate it alows for VBR)
Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure I just used it to encode some 256kbps VBR. From memory VBR is only allowed for some bitrates (not 224, but 256 works).
Are you sure about that? I'm pretty sure I just used it to encode some 256kbps VBR. From memory VBR is only allowed for some bitrates (not 224, but 256 works).
That may be, I only remember trying a higher bitrate and it wouldn't allow it. Sorry for any confusion.
I did some ABX tests beetven iTunes AAC @ 192 VBR (the highest bitrate it alows for VBR) and the MPC rips to see if I can spot the difference and I got a bit dissapointed when I got 8/8 on a song by Tool.
How recent was this? It sounds like your hearing/artifact training is a cut above (most of) the rest.
Please do a similar Vorbis test...I'm anxious as to your results. Guru's "classical" music listening test at 180 kbps showed Vorbis easily taking the lead from mpc...the question still remains if this lead is also present with other genres.
Well perhaps this was some isolated artifact, but the main difference between the two files was the handling of preccusion (ride, crash etc.) as far the bass and vocals were conserned I couldn't tell the difference. Bear in mind that it was only 2 songs from the same artist. The only other time I did an abx was to see if I could tell the difference between aps and 320kbps mp3, and the answer was: statistically no.
Just a quick Rockbox status update for those that may not be keeping up with progress since the initial availability of the iPod port:
1) The beginnings of a port to the older (3G) ipods is now in CVS. It's still not functional, but it's progressing.
2) A port to the 4G Grayscale ipods is also in progress - it's in need of a developer who owns such an ipod to finish it.
3) A fully customisable 5-band software EQ is now in Rockbox (for all "software codec" players - iriver H1x0, iriver H3x0 and iPods)
4) The glitches in iPod audio playback have now been fixed - playback on the iPods now seems as stable as the iriver players.
5) Some optimisations have been made to the ALAC decoder - it's now realtime on the iPod. This brings the list of working codecs to: MP3, Ogg Vorbis, AAC, MP2, FLAC, Wavpack (lossy and lossless), AC3, ALAC, Musepack, WAV, AIFF and Shorten.
Many thanks for the update.
Do you know if APEv2 tag support is planned? This is the default tagging when ripping to FLAC as far as I'm aware?
Cheers
Paul.
Do you know if APEv2 tag support is planned? This is the default tagging when ripping to FLAC as far as I'm aware?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=362642"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
FLAC files shouldn't have APE tags - they should have native Vorbis comments.
As far as I know (I could be wrong), Rockbox only supports APEv2 tags in Musepack and Wavpack files.
just awesome! Thanks for updating us, Dave!
same here ... can't wait this 25 to have my nano ...
Do you know if APEv2 tag support is planned? This is the default tagging when ripping to FLAC as far as I'm aware?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=362642"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
FLAC files shouldn't have APE tags - they should have native Vorbis comments.
As far as I know (I could be wrong), Rockbox only supports APEv2 tags in Musepack and Wavpack files.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=362646"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ahh ok, wasn't sure, I just remember rockbox moaning that there were no ID3 tags found when I played a FLAC file. Will get the latest firmware/software flashed and give it a go
Many thanks for the update.
Do you know if APEv2 tag support is planned? This is the default tagging when ripping to FLAC as far as I'm aware?
Cheers
Paul.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=362642"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I asked for apev2 tags support on mp3 in rockbox two years ago and nobody was interested.
Let's hope that devs have changed their minds.
I think they don't want to support APE tags because it's position in the file is causing more strain on player memory (can't remember the details, it was in a recent irc log from #rockbox).
There is a patch for apev2 in mp3:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?f...306&aid=1245274 (http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&atid=439120&group_id=44306&aid=1245274)
There's also one for displaying non-standard tags:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?f...306&aid=1252758 (http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&atid=439120&group_id=44306&aid=1252758)
I'm not sure how up-to-date these patches are and if they apply cleanly.
No they are not up-to-date. I am going to have a deep look at these, to try and apply manually.
[edit:]not up to date but still works. the failing part in the first patch can applied manually quite easily. I will try and make some updated patch.
I would really like to know if this makes ApeV2 replaygain tags compatible with rockbox.
I would really like to know if this makes ApeV2 replaygain tags compatible with rockbox.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=363088"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That would be hot. I do not look forward to rewriting ID3v2 tags for when I do eventually get rockbox on my iPod.
Its now working on the 4G too. A few display glitches, but I'm listening to MPC on my iPod and its very, very sweet.
Edit: I meant 4G grayscale
Oh goodie. Once the power consumption is comparable to Apple's firmware, I'll definitely give Rockbox a try. My own qualm is power. I put linux on my ipod once and you could literally feel the thing get warmer and warmer, and the battery draining much quicker.
If it's anything like Rockbox was on my H140 it'll take a little while before they get the power efficiency up to par. However, it does move pretty quickly.
All you iPod owners will probably feel like you got new DAPs without having to pay anything more and that was a very nice feeling
I'm actually somewhat considering a 4GB black Nano and putting Rockbox on it as a backup (actually tertiary now) player.
I would really like to know if this makes ApeV2 replaygain tags compatible with rockbox.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=363088"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That would be hot. I do not look forward to rewriting ID3v2 tags for when I do eventually get rockbox on my iPod.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=363181"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The developer recently updated the APEV2 patch. I can't try it as my 3G isn't supported (though that should change soon), but it looks like its up to date.
Is anybody having glitchy mp3 (320 kbps, FhG in my case) playback on the latest Rockbox for Nano? I guess the sound output is still being tweaked and/or it could be the full CPU utilization. Oggs at ~80 kbps seem to play back fine (other than being noisy when initially selected with the navigation buttons).
I would really like to know if this makes ApeV2 replaygain tags compatible with rockbox.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=363088"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That would be hot. I do not look forward to rewriting ID3v2 tags for when I do eventually get rockbox on my iPod.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=363181"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The developer recently updated the APEV2 patch. I can't try it as my 3G isn't supported (though that should change soon), but it looks like its up to date.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=363435"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Is there any reason the developer can't can't merge the patch in with the main rockbox development? Just wondering since it's an open project.
Is there any reason the developer can't can't merge the patch in with the main rockbox development? Just wondering since it's an open project.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=363462"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think they don't want to support APE tags because it's position in the file is causing more strain on player memory (can't remember the details, it was in a recent irc log from #rockbox).
Is there any reason the developer can't can't merge the patch in with the main rockbox development? Just wondering since it's an open project.
The patch is in the Rockbox patch tracker, so any user can apply it and compile their own version of Rockbox.
But IMO, the patch isn't optimal - Rockbox already seeks to the end of the file to look for an id3v1 tag, so the search for an apev2 tag could be done at the same time (performing a single seek, and a single read). That patch adds a search for the apev2 tag after the search for id3v1/v2 tags.
A decision also needs to be made as to how Rockbox should behave if there are id3v1, id3v2 and ape tags all present in the same file. Currently Rockbox has a setting to give priority to either id3v1 or id3v2 tags in a file. How should this be extended to include ape in the equation?
The comments attached to the existing apev2-in-mp3 patch say that when a file contains both an id3v1 tag and an apev2 tag, then the id3v1 tag will be at the very end of the file, and the apev2 tag will immediately preceed it. Is this how the important tagging applications behave?
The comments attached to the existing apev2-in-mp3 patch say that when a file contains both an id3v1 tag and an apev2 tag, then the id3v1 tag will be at the very end of the file, and the apev2 tag will immediately preceed it. Is this how the important tagging applications behave?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=363509"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is how I've seen it. The idea is that a program that only knows about ID3v1 can only find it if it's at the very end of the file. A program smart enough to know about APEv2 tags can find them even if they're before the ID3v1 tag. The only reason to have both tags there is because you're using (or might use) a mix of players, some of which don't do APE tags. I would say it's also a given that if there's an APEv2 tag there then that would take priority over a ID3v1 tag (which is inferior in every way).
I have not looked at the patch code myself, but there is a subtle problem if you look for the ID3v1 tag first because the "TAG" in "APETAG" can occur in exactly the wrong place to look like a ID3v1 tag! So, the correct sequence is:
1. Look for APEv2 tag at end of file; if it's there you're done (use APEv2 tag).
2. Look for ID3v1 tag at end of file; if it's not there you're done (no tag found).
3. Look for APEv2 tag before ID3v1 tag; if it's there use APEv2, else use the ID3v1
As for the option, I would say that the choice should stay the same because what it's really specifying is whether to look at the beginning or the end of the file first. Now, the search for the ID3v1 tag at the end would also include the APEv2 tag checks as above, and certainly (IMHO) there's no good reason to intentionally ignore an APEv2 tag if it's there. Perhaps the option text should be ID3v2 before ID3v1/APEv2, or something like that...?
edit: fixed confusing logical error about which tag to look for first
If ya'll need some help with that, let me know. I wrote a large part of the iTunesDB entry on the iPodLinux wiki, maybe it would be possible to make the thing capable of reading the normal iPod database (thus making it iTunes compatible... as long as the normal iPod folder structure remains on the thing, iTunes won't know the difference).
Hi, just wanted to say that there is plenty of interest in this from users. I'd much prefer continuing to use iTunesDB than organizing my music by directories/playlists. For one, I already have a lot of music already organized this way. And as you said earlier, it is simply easier to navigate. Not to mention, if I ever actually wanted to revert back to the Apple firmware I'd wouldn't want to have a bunch of music I couldn't play. So, if someone could make libitunesdb happen in rockbox that would be awesome.
So as I see it: as soon as the the new firmware becomes stable it will be THE solution for people wanting the most out of their digital music. Original iTunes centered firmware will remain the best for n00bs, people who use iTunes as the default player and the iTunes store, and lastly, for those who don't have time and/or lack the will to mess with basic settings. Theese are mostly the same differences as in beetven foobar and Winamp users...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=361569"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Really can't agree with you there. Despite helping where I can with alternative ways to use the iPod, I still use iTunes to sync my iPod. Why? Because it's way more advanced than any other program out there for iPod manipulation.
In point of fact, for the power user, the iPod/iTunes combination has *everything* else on the market beat, hands down. Smart playlists alone give it that edge, along with syncronization of playcounts and last played time information, as well as the audiobook handling. Nothing else even competes on those levels. Drag and drop functionality and gapless support are simply not the end-all be-all of "power user" functionality that you make it out to be.
And really, looking at the Rockbox firmware, it's good, but even if they had it working 100%, it's still not up to par with the default iPod firmware. Yes, Rockbox can do gapless and play some formats that the iPod can't. But it can't sync playcounts and song ratings back to my music library program. It can't do smart playlists that adjust themselves in real time. It can't show me a list of every artist in my library in under 3 seconds. My iPod can do all those things, and I'm sorry, but it's the iTunes integration that makes that actually happen. Now, I admit foopod emulates quite a lot of that functionality, because Aero has done a fantastic job of keeping the iPodDB classes up to date. Props to Aero there. But Rockbox has a loooooong ways to go before I'd consider using it. Just having gapless + odd format support + weirdly crowded display screens that show tons of semi-useless info is not a win, in my book.
Rockbox just seems like a step backwards, really. It's like reinventing the wheel and just making it a bit rounder in the process. I don't need another wheel, I need a car with some shiny rims.
This is largely the same reason I don't use foobar except as a utility to do things to music. It's a step backwards compared to other players. This is not to down on foobar, it's like the swiss army knife of music programs, it can do anything with the right amount of effort. But I don't use a swiss army knife to open cans when I have an electric can opener at hand.
I think the Rockbox team should focus on deeper functionality and better integration with the PC, for all their supported players. Forget about drag and drop, or at least make a way that works better. C'mon, put those XML standards to work, there's a better way there somewhere. Make an open and easy to implement standard for this sort of thing. Invent some new feature that the iPod doesn't have already, one which will make the process of finding and listening to my music nicer in a significant way. Find that better integration, make my life simpler, and then I'll switch away from iTunes. But not before.
for the power user, the iPod/iTunes combination has *everything* else on the market beat, hands down. Smart playlists alone give it that edge, along with syncronization of playcounts and last played time information, as well as the audiobook handling. Nothing else even competes on those levels.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=363854"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Speaking as someone who doesn't use playlists of any kind, could you give some insight as to how you use them and why they make listening to and/or navigating your music easier or more enjoyable? Perhaps a detailed example? I understand what playlists are, I don't understand the appeal.
Same question for the concepts of playcounts and last played time info.
Most of that extemporaneous stuff he mentioned is basically bells and whistles, when Rockbox is just interested in making a serious yet basic portable DAP with as much format support as possible, as well as gapless playback...not all of us care to have database management and playcount/last time played info on hand.
Everyone is of course entitled to their own opinion. For myself the integration with a program to database the player was a feature I didn't want to have to deal with on a player. Drag and drop simply was the more elegant option for me because my music is already sorted on my computer in albums under a logical filetree. Due to the fact a vast majority of my albums require gapless playback to sound like they should that was also a feature I was looking for but didn't obtain until a year after I purchased my original iRiver H120.
I don't use playlists myself either as I said I tend to listen to albums. Therefore any system that complicates this action doesn't work well for me. I'm not saying that it wouldn't work for someone else, but everyone is different. For every person who would rather have integration with a piece of software to manage a DAP there is someone who would prefer to have total control and do it on their own through drag and drop.
Rockbox has quite a large audience to be honest and is a well polished firmware once it's been on a device for a while. I've been using it on my H140 since July 2005 and it is leagues above the original iRiver firmware. Then again my player was always drag and drop.
I suppose the moral of the whole story is if you're happy with iTunes/iPod integration by all means continue to use it. However, that system simply doesn't work for everyone and is a deterrant for some. I for one have recently considered getting a Nano as a flash player because it can run Rockbox as the Apple firmware simply wouldn't have done it for me.
Anyhow, as always I'm grateful to all the Rockbox devs for all their hard work in bringing the world a very excellent functional DAP firmware that I enjoy using and now many more who chose to can use on a DAP that's actually in active production
Well I own an iPod too and I must admit I have absolutely no use for dynamic playlists. And at the beginning, I felt that to have different types of hierarchical musc sortings was nice (by genre, artist, compilation ...) but in the end I never use it. In fact I even think that it lacks some features like sorting a band's albums by year of release without need to set the album to year+album title. Furthermore, even if iTunes is kind of good for some people needs, I definitely do not like it, it is not configurable enough.
I bought and iPod and it was mainly because of sexy design/hard drive size/relative quality comparing to others DAP, not because of iTunes.
In a nutshell, it is just a matter of taste to think that rockbox on iPod is great or useless.
Guess it depends how you listen to your music, I've always liked using ml_pod because it's just another plugin for my music player, same as foopod too
I still need to try rockbox again now the volume control is there and drop a bigger font in.
personally I ought to have a database, because it is much more convenient.
perhaps one artist has an album "x" which is alternative-rock and an 2 albums "y" and "Z" which are metal. now - with a database you can choose. do I want everything from this artist OR do I want to listen to metal albums from this artist. nice, isn't it? a database is finally that thing that changes your listending behaviour. directories is nothing more than "virtual" cds. listen to that cd then change it and listen to another one. if you want a mix - burn a mixed cd. that's old, isn't it?
smart-playlists are also a "smart" way of organizing your music.
if you like to listen to your favourite tracks, it is handy to have something like playcount. think about it.
why not offer both options?!
but I do not agree with Otto42 regarding the formats and gapless playback etc. quote:
"Just having gapless + odd format support + weirdly crowded display screens that show tons of semi-useless info is not a win, in my book."
gapless and ogg are things I am longing for a long time already. these were the points preventing me from buying my third iPod. but now, I'll do so, because of rockbox. certenly it needs improvements when it comes to the simplicity apple offers. and - I have to say it again. it needs a database. the database is the thing which makes the ipod so popular IMO, despite the style! consider the style.
Is it true that Rockbox fixes the VBR mp3 playback issues for the Nano? http://forums.rockbox.org/index.php?topic=2491.15 (http://forums.rockbox.org/index.php?topic=2491.15) Can someone please verify this? If true, this is a BIG switch factor for me (and possible for a lot of frustrated Mini/Nano owners out there!)
Is it true that Rockbox fixes the VBR mp3 playback issues for the Nano? http://forums.rockbox.org/index.php?topic=2491.15 (http://forums.rockbox.org/index.php?topic=2491.15) Can someone please verify this? If true, this is a BIG switch factor for me (and possible for a lot of frustrated Mini/Nano owners out there!)
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=363960"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, it fixes the vbr problems since it is an Apple firmware specific problem
I have to say it again. it needs a database. the database is the thing which makes the ipod so popular IMO, despite the style! consider the style.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=363902"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi. I agree totally. If I could have a nano that played ogg files and could search by artist I would be happy.
The ability to load a playlist would be necessary. Dynamic playlist creation would be icing on the cake.
Does anyone know how long the battery lasts if running at full cpu under normal use?
Seems like the 5G (Video) Audio driver maybe working now:
iPod: Audio driver for iPod Video/5G.
Not of any use to myself, im unable to test, but consider this a heads up for those who were waitning, but not checking frequently.
Kristian
Yes it does work, but it has problem's, but this is an extremly important step.
Seems like the 5G (Video) Audio driver maybe working now:
iPod: Audio driver for iPod Video/5G.
NIIIIIIIIIICE
I'm off to buy myself an ipod (as soon as I have cash )
The big problem with the 5G was figuring out what spec sheet to follow when implementing the driver. Now that they know which specification the custom WM DAC used in the 5G follows, it should be fairly straightforward to iron out the bugs.
Speaking as someone who doesn't use playlists of any kind, could you give some insight as to how you use them and why they make listening to and/or navigating your music easier or more enjoyable? Perhaps a detailed example? I understand what playlists are, I don't understand the appeal.
Same question for the concepts of playcounts and last played time info.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=363859"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have one main playlist which has these rules:
Genre is not Comedy
Genre is not Podcast
Genre is not Audiobook
This basically defines what I consider to be "music". Then my main listening playlists include the above, plus something like these:
Last Played is not in last 2 weeks
Rating is greater than X stars
Where X varies depending on my mood. This playlist basically gives me my favorite tunes. Since I have over half my songs rated, it's not a small playlist. The Last Played info keeps the music "fresh", it's stuff that I haven't heard recently.
Every once in a while, I'll play some list where Rating = 0 stars, meaning I have not rated it yet. Then I'll rate the song when I hear one I like. This rating on the iPod gets imported back into iTunes during a sync.
Sometimes, I'll play a specific keyword playlist, like my "Angry" playlist. This is basically "Comment contains Angry", and is just music I've tagged as being my angry music. Loud, fast, lots of screaming, that sort of thing. Or my "Mellow" playlist. Same thing, just consists of slower music. And so forth. I almost never simply pick an album to play. But if I do, I don't need playlists for that, that's built into the iPod already. Just pick the Artist and highlight the Album and hit play. Easy.
Having all this information sync both directions is key to this strategy. A large collection of correct metadata must exist in order for it to work, and it must be kept up to date (preferably on an automatic level). This is not "bells and whistles", this defines how I want to listen to my music. This defines how I've *always* wanted to listen to my music.
I don't want to have to pick and choose every single song/album. I want just tell the thing what *kind* of music I want to hear, and then hear it. iTunes/iPod lets me do just that. I do not feel the need to micromanage my listening choices. I had to micromanage playlists like that 10 years ago when I first started listening to my music through computers. Having to go back to that sort of thing is definitely a step backward.
but I do not agree with Otto42 regarding the formats and gapless playback etc. quote:
"Just having gapless + odd format support + weirdly crowded display screens that show tons of semi-useless info is not a win, in my book."
gapless and ogg are things I am longing for a long time already. these were the points preventing me from buying my third iPod.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=363902"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You missed the most important word in that quote: "JUST".
Having format support is nice, and having gapless support is nice. I'm not saying to eschew these completely. I'm just saying that these are of lesser importance to the act of actually *playing* music.
In playing music, the first step is telling the system what music it is that you wish to play. If that step is difficult, then it needs work. With Rockbox firmware, that step remains difficult. It's only slightly better than finding a CD and sticking it into a CD player. It is simply not a great improvement.
iTunes' Smart Playlists are a great improvement. But there are probably better ways to do this too. Finding those better ways would be a better area to focus on, IMO. That's where the innovation is. Making the thing play music of various formats is nice and all, but format is almost irrelevant, as I can put my music into any format. Format is arbitrary in that respect.
Yes, this forum is a great place to debate the technical merits of one format vs. another, and it's done often. It's virtually why this forum exists. However, when you really get right down to it, the choice of format is a techie thing. Lots of people don't care about their music's format. As long as it plays and doesn't sound like total garbage, they're happy with it. I'm perfectly satisfied with 160 AAC, for example, and I'm reasonably knowledgable about this sort of thing. Maybe you like OGG. Maybe you like Matroska. Whatever, if the device plays your chosen format, then beyond that, there's really no need for any more format support. The fact that my iPod could play OGG with Rockbox is fairly worthless to me, because I don't use OGG. Yes, OGG might be important to you, but making the thing easier to use and thus play the music you want to play is probably pretty important to everybody.
I'm not saying that they should add smart playlists exactly as iTunes does. What I'm saying is that they should have something more advanced than simply selecting and playing an album or a predefined playlist. The device should be smarter than that. The UI should be easier to use than that. That's what makes a player great. Playing a thousand formats gaplessly is nice, but of lesser importance, in my book.
And I'm suggesting that I am not alone in that respect. People don't notice formats, but they do notice the user interface. Lack of OGG, lack of gapless? These are not deal breakers for me. I can cope with them. But having to step back in time to how I managed my music 10 years ago? That's a deal breaker, and a big one too.
I guess this means the the 'to do' list until its completley implemented comes down to: fix bugs on some lcd targets, make cpu use dynamic clock speed and fix the battery indicator.
Maybe the offtopic iTunes and apple firmware arguements could be started in a different thread?
This is not "bells and whistles", this defines how I want to listen to my music. This defines how I've *always* wanted to listen to my music.
I don't want to have to pick and choose every single song/album. I want just tell the thing what *kind* of music I want to hear, and then hear it.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364045"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you for the insight Otto.. I can see how the iPod firmware would be very appealing if that's how you like your music. I guess we just listen in opposite ways. I always know exactly what song I want to hear, and navigate to it. When I'm feeling "dangerous" I might shuffle through all songs, but that's pretty rare.
But where's the iPod firmware's GameBoy emulator? j/k
to Otto42 and others in this 'which is better' argument...
This is all interesting reading. But isn't this all just "rockbox is better for me" versus "iTunes is better for me"? There's no disagreement to be had in that, because the 'me's are different. There's an important distinction between 'better' and 'better for me', and everyone is starting off talking about 'better' and ending up justifying that by talking about 'better for me'.
Can we just drop the personal comparisons? For example I don't listen to music like Otto42 does, I just want something to carry round my albums with. I listen to music in albums - apologies for being so backward. If there's something i haven't listened to in a while I just listen to it, and I like to have the album be played in whatever format I ripped it in and played continuously without gaps. Rockbox is better for me. But who else really cares?!? I'm certainly not saying that my use for music is better than anyone else's. I'm not even sure what that would mean. Perhaps we should have a poll thread or something, if 'which one's best for me' is really what we want to be talking about. That's all this arguing is really boiling down to in the end. Both firmwares have their uses, if you have uses for them, and which is better is a matter of which fits you better.
Spandrel, I think the "arguing" started when Otto fired the initial shot by defining what he considers better. I don't think we all need a lecture. This line of discussion would certainly fit better elsewhere, as someone else mentioned...
Spandrel, I think the "arguing" started when Otto fired the initial shot by defining what he considers better. I don't think we all need a lecture. This line of discussion would certainly fit better elsewhere, as someone else mentioned...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364103"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sure, I was more-or-less agreeing with that (splitting off the line of discussion). And the 'lecture' was explicitly address to the participants in that discussion, not to all.
There is room I think for people to thrash out what they like or dislike though, that at least is being informative about what comparative features there are to like or dislike.
Eg someone else mentioned that there was no database feature in rockbox. There is, but it's a bit awkward - you need to generate one while connected via USB using a java or perl script, and then set the browser to 'browse by tags'. So it's not fully implimented yet but might be functional enough for some if you just want to be able to browse by album, artist, etc (correct me if I misunderstood the requirement).
Good points, sorry if I came across as a bit aggressive. I have the tendency to take forum comments personally, which can be a bad trait.
I wasn't aware of that fix but it, of course, requires that your tags all be properly filled. Mine are not 100% but I would still be interested in experiencing navigation by way of a database sometime...I just don't follow that type of organization method and keep music in directory trees generally.
Eg someone else mentioned that there was no database feature in rockbox. There is, but it's a bit awkward - you need to generate one while connected via USB using a java or perl script, and then set the browser to 'browse by tags'. So it's not fully implimented yet but might be functional enough for some if you just want to be able to browse by album, artist, etc (correct me if I misunderstood the requirement).
I have just tried it and my ipod froze when I enabled it.
but I do not agree with Otto42 regarding the formats and gapless playback etc. quote:
"Just having gapless + odd format support + weirdly crowded display screens that show tons of semi-useless info is not a win, in my book."
gapless and ogg are things I am longing for a long time already. these were the points preventing me from buying my third iPod.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=363902"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You missed the most important word in that quote: "JUST".
Having format support is nice, and having gapless support is nice. I'm not saying to eschew these completely. I'm just saying that these are of lesser importance to the act of actually *playing* music.
In playing music, the first step is telling the system what music it is that you wish to play. If that step is difficult, then it needs work. With Rockbox firmware, that step remains difficult. It's only slightly better than finding a CD and sticking it into a CD player. It is simply not a great improvement.
iTunes' Smart Playlists are a great improvement. But there are probably better ways to do this too. Finding those better ways would be a better area to focus on, IMO. That's where the innovation is. Making the thing play music of various formats is nice and all, but format is almost irrelevant, as I can put my music into any format. Format is arbitrary in that respect.
Yes, this forum is a great place to debate the technical merits of one format vs. another, and it's done often. It's virtually why this forum exists. However, when you really get right down to it, the choice of format is a techie thing. Lots of people don't care about their music's format. As long as it plays and doesn't sound like total garbage, they're happy with it. I'm perfectly satisfied with 160 AAC, for example, and I'm reasonably knowledgable about this sort of thing. Maybe you like OGG. Maybe you like Matroska. Whatever, if the device plays your chosen format, then beyond that, there's really no need for any more format support. The fact that my iPod could play OGG with Rockbox is fairly worthless to me, because I don't use OGG. Yes, OGG might be important to you, but making the thing easier to use and thus play the music you want to play is probably pretty important to everybody.
I'm not saying that they should add smart playlists exactly as iTunes does. What I'm saying is that they should have something more advanced than simply selecting and playing an album or a predefined playlist. The device should be smarter than that. The UI should be easier to use than that. That's what makes a player great. Playing a thousand formats gaplessly is nice, but of lesser importance, in my book.
And I'm suggesting that I am not alone in that respect. People don't notice formats, but they do notice the user interface. Lack of OGG, lack of gapless? These are not deal breakers for me. I can cope with them. But having to step back in time to how I managed my music 10 years ago? That's a deal breaker, and a big one too.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364045"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Otto42, you are absolutely right. I do think that the UI is very important and that Rockbox at least should have an Apple equivalent.
but if you'd take a look at other companies' support forums, you saw many requests for gapless playback. (talking about iAudio). Of course they don't request ogg or flac, because iAudio's players do that already.
my point is: Rockbox is worthless to me without a decent UI (e.g. database-browsing a la Apple), but if Rockbox had this UI without being capable of playing back other formats (and doing this better - with gapless-playback and/or RG) it would be worthless either.
IMHO.
something else. it is not only about what people like better or something. it it also about improving Rockbox - don't forget that. we are not fighting about taste.
that's why I said - why not implement both things. directory-structure and database.
1) Rockbox has been functional on ipods for a little over two weeks, and there is still a LOT of work to be done just to get basic audio playback working reliably. There are never enough hours that the volunteer Rockbox developers can spend on the project, and the focus has always been to make the actual audio playback as good as possible.
2) As mentioned on the first page of this thread, a developer has spend the last few months developing a new tag database for Rockbox, and from the recent progress reports it seems very close to being committed to CVS.
3) "smart playlists" and integration with PC software can't happen without 2). But there are developers eagerly waiting to take advantage of the relaunched Rockbox tag database when its ready.
Rockbox is not a commercial company - it's the result of volunteers around the world who enjoy spending their free time contributing to the project. If there are features you feel are missing from Rockbox, then pick up a C programming book and help make them happen.
Is there definitely no possibility of an OS X port ?
Is there definitely no possibility of an OS X port ?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364205"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is for DAPs not Windows or anything, not sure if you can get any of the utils that are needed to rip the firmware or anything for other OSes though?
Oh yeah, Dave the work you and the other devs do is much appreciated!!
This is for DAPs not Windows or anything, not sure if you can get any of the utils that are needed to rip the firmware or anything for other OSes though?
OK then, a version that will run on an HFS+ formatted iPod accessed solely by connection to a computer running OS X.
Rockbox is not a commercial company - it's the result of volunteers around the world who enjoy spending their free time contributing to the project. If there are features you feel are missing from Rockbox, then pick up a C programming book and help make them happen.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364187"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is no excuse. Rockbox is a public project, and as such it is fair-ground for criticism.
The "learn to code and your own thing" argument is nonsense.
That said, I agree that Rockbox is still a work in progress and I do look forward to see where it leads to.
This is no excuse. Rockbox is a public project, and as such it is fair-ground for criticism.
it depends on if it is "constructive criticism", or "destructive" one.
The "learn to code and your own thing" argument is nonsense.
why is that? if you don't like something, and the person gives you the right to contribute, and you think you have better ideas, implement it. That is one of the reasons for open source.
That said, I agree that Rockbox is still a work in progress and I do look forward to see where it leads to.
there we both agree.
I think rockbox is really cool, i would like it to end up being something with the cool interface of the iPod, withouth the need of the DB system. I just like to drop my files, and play them. Don't like to have the need for iTunes.
THANKS ROCKBOX TEAM!
Rockbox is not a commercial company - it's the result of volunteers around the world who enjoy spending their free time contributing to the project. If there are features you feel are missing from Rockbox, then pick up a C programming book and help make them happen.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364187"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is no excuse. Rockbox is a public project, and as such it is fair-ground for criticism.
The "learn to code and your own thing" argument is nonsense.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364262"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is the ONLY argument you need. And there is nothing more annoying than people that think they can DEMAND something from freeware authors. Sure, it's a public project, and the authors listen to the users, but you still have to remember that they are doing this for free. And the only people that are in the position to make decisions are the authors themselves. And indeed, if you don't like this, you are free and welcome to lend in your hand.
Is there definitely no possibility of an OS X port ?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364205"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, there is the possibility of making Rockbox work with HFS+ formatted iPods, but so far no-one has expressed any interest in doing so.
As I'm sure you know, you can reformat your iPod as FAT32 and continue to use it on your Mac.
That is the ONLY argument you need. And there is nothing more annoying than people that think they can DEMAND something from freeware authors. Sure, it's a public project, and the authors listen to the users, but you still have to remember that they are doing this for free. And the only people that are in the position to make decisions are the authors themselves. And indeed, if you don't like this, you are free and welcome to lend in your hand.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364271"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I wasn't demanding, nor defending people who demand -- yes, I do find them annoying also -- nor did I mean any disrespect for freeware or open-source apps (which are not the same, as you know). I was just trying to comment on the way some pieces of software at a given time, are somewhat considered "sacred" and noone is allowed to say anything bad about them.
There are a couple of people in this thread who have posted how and why Rockbox doesn't fit their needs and we have people telling them to go develop their own thing. This is no constructive, nor is it sane. Not everybody in this forum is a developer or is in any way interested in code (or, in my case, has any time to learn it even if I wanted). But we all have opinions, don't we?
Is there definitely no possibility of an OS X port ?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364205"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, there is the possibility of making Rockbox work with HFS+ formatted iPods, but so far no-one has expressed any interest in doing so.
As I'm sure you know, you can reformat your iPod as FAT32 and continue to use it on your Mac.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364273"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'll give it a bash next time I need to restore the pod...taking everything off makes the whole thing heat up so much that I'm loath to do it unnecessarily. I don't know if I'd need to update Apple firmware via Virtual PC susequently. I don't see the point of lossless on a DAP and I'm happy enough with decent bitrate LAME/AAC but gaplessness for live recordings certainly does appeal to me.
The thing about it is that it's hard enough to write all the base line code. Most developer's do not have enough time to deal with everybody's request. This thread is not in the official rockbox forum, so posting here asking for rockbox feature's will most likely fall on deaf ear's. But the fact remain's the same, many of the small stuff is added by people who make there own patch's. Rockbox is a community effort. The rockbox was originally made for greyscale lcd's with pretty slow cpu's. It's now being ported to new DAC's with color lcd's, larger ram and pretty powerful cpu's. So obviously a lot of thing's are changing. A lot of stuff has to be reworked or made from the ground up. This will take time. The first priority is making the DAP working stable, then comes the cosmetic and minor stuff.
That is the ONLY argument you need. And there is nothing more annoying than people that think they can DEMAND something from freeware authors. Sure, it's a public project, and the authors listen to the users, but you still have to remember that they are doing this for free. And the only people that are in the position to make decisions are the authors themselves. And indeed, if you don't like this, you are free and welcome to lend in your hand.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364271"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There are a couple of people in this thread who have posted how and why Rockbox doesn't fit their needs and we have people telling them to go develop their own thing. This is no constructive, nor is it sane. Not everybody in this forum is a developer or is in any way interested in code (or, in my case, has any time to learn it even if I wanted). But we all have opinions, don't we?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364274"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually its perfectly constructive and sane. This is a thread about rockbox being ported to the ipod. If it were a thread about complaining about Rockbox not being enough like the stock firmware, you would have a point. But its not. So if you want to bitch, perhaps you or someone else could start that thread.
Or you could go bitch somewhere on the Rockbox site (or their IRC channel), where someone might actually take your ideas and implement them, since here it's basically pointless. Like keytotime said, it's just falling on deaf ears here.
Firon, I don't think it's falling on deaf ears here (a pun intended?)
I think, many Rockbox guys will actually read this post. because of the "hydrogenaudio" in the url .
I really don't think anyone was bitching here. really. it is totally sane to talk about what different people like, think and want.
and, I think every developer likes to hear, what the potential users of his software would like to see in it. what would else be the point in making software - open-source / freeware especially. it is from users for users, who are not satisfied with the status quo. so...
one question: talking about "off-topic"
has anyone around here proclaimed the topic of this thread? it was started with the information that rockbox was working on the ipod.
davechapman, out of curiousity, are you a Rockbox developer?
davechapman, out of curiousity, are you a Rockbox developer?
He is. Look at the ipod page on the rockbox.org site.
neomoe: No pun intended!
I guess I didn't really consider the possibility of there being Rockbox developers here. In any case, some of the posts really DID sound like bitching, but not all of them.
Still, I think it might be better to talk about UI improvements or any suggestion really on the Rockbox forums/IRC, where it's more likely to get taken into consideration. Plus, it may already be being discussed on there, so your ideas may already have been thought of (and possibly being in the works)!
davechapman: thanks for your contributions to this port, it might just convince me to buy an iPod, 'cause the features and improvements are quite appealing to me
davechapman, out of curiousity, are you a Rockbox developer?
Yes I am. You'll see my name all over the Rockbox wiki in relation to the iPod port (and other things - mainly the audio codecs).
It shouldn't be a surprise that a lot of people involved with Rockbox are also members of HA - they both appeal to people with an interest in digital audio. But yes, the best place to discuss Rockbox features and future development is on the Rockbox forums - http://forums.rockbox.org (http://forums.rockbox.org)
Don't get me wrong - I don't object to people criticising Rockbox. But it does get frustrating when people criticise Rockbox for not having certain features (like a good tag database) when the developers themselves agree that those features are needed, but just haven't had the time to finish implementing them.
neomoe: No pun intended!
I guess I didn't really consider the possibility of there being Rockbox developers here. In any case, some of the posts really DID sound like bitching, but not all of them.
Still, I think it might be better to talk about UI improvements or any suggestion really on the Rockbox forums/IRC, where it's more likely to get taken into consideration. Plus, it may already be being discussed on there, so your ideas may already have been thought of (and possibly being in the works)!
davechapman: thanks for your contributions to this port, it might just convince me to buy an iPod, 'cause the features and improvements are quite appealing to me
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=364431")
davechapman, out of curiousity, are you a Rockbox developer?
Yes I am. You'll see my name all over the Rockbox wiki in relation to the iPod port (and other things - mainly the audio codecs).
It shouldn't be a surprise that a lot of people involved with Rockbox are also members of HA - they both appeal to people with an interest in digital audio. But yes, the best place to discuss Rockbox features and future development is on the Rockbox forums - [a href="http://forums.rockbox.org]http://forums.rockbox.org[/url]
Don't get me wrong - I don't object to people criticising Rockbox. But it does get frustrating when people criticise Rockbox for not having certain features (like a good tag database) when the developers themselves agree that those features are needed, but just haven't had the time to finish implementing them.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364452"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I didn't want to disrespect the work of the Rockbox team, sorry, if it sounded like that..
actually, I am really happy with an iPod port!
and, no - it's not a suprise...
I'll create an account on the Rockbox forum and will link to this post. hopefully the suggestions here are welcome.
Nearly working 5g audio? Great, i'm buying one today then.
As opposed to those decrying the efforts of the rockbox team, i'd like to thank them - I can now play my 250gb musepack/flac collection on a decent sized and currently available dap without transcoding. That, to me, is gold. Now go on, flame me for my choice of codec...
@ seanyseansean
If it's a loseless codec it's a good codec. But just from a size point, wavpack is smaller than than Flac and Rockbox support's both.
Don't get me wrong - I don't object to people criticising Rockbox. But it does get frustrating when people criticise Rockbox for not having certain features (like a good tag database) when the developers themselves agree that those features are needed, but just haven't had the time to finish implementing them.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364452"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
heh, yes!... it would be as if half way through apple developing the ipods firmware people complained that it didn't have enough features... this project on the other hand is one which we get to see the development process... and you can actually contribute or suggest idea's unlike apples (or others) where users have virtually no say in the matter...
thanks again to all the developers, I've been wanting a solid state (at least multiple GB) DAP for a while and with apple having the only hardware that meets my needs, rockbox has been something I've been following for quite a while... I'm almost ready to bite the bullet and buy one... (I know once I do someone, probably apple, will release a >4GB model... )
Peace
just did a few posts. nice guys over there :-)
not really, but okay. I'll just sit here, watching.
Don't get me wrong - I don't object to people criticising Rockbox. But it does get frustrating when people criticise Rockbox for not having certain features (like a good tag database) when the developers themselves agree that those features are needed, but just haven't had the time to finish implementing them.
that is a really good point.
i just registered in rockbox forum
Don't get me wrong - I don't object to people criticising Rockbox. But it does get frustrating when people criticise Rockbox for not having certain features (like a good tag database) when the developers themselves agree that those features are needed, but just haven't had the time to finish implementing them.
that is a really good point.
i just registered in rockbox forum
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364561"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
... and I just bought my ipod
... and I just bought my ipod
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364731"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
... and now it's been Rockboxed. It's ugly, but absolutely fantastic. Hats off to Dave, Preglow and the rest of the devs, I might even donate at this rate.
can't wait to try it in mine!
Don't get me wrong - I don't object to people criticising Rockbox. But it does get frustrating when people criticise Rockbox for not having certain features (like a good tag database) when the developers themselves agree that those features are needed, but just haven't had the time to finish implementing them.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364452"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just so we're clear, you shouldn't take it as a criticism, you should take it as a suggestion, or perhaps simply as a different perspective on things.
All I was trying to say in the first place is that after looking at the current functionality of Rockbox, I wouldn't install or use it because it lacks some functionality that I consider crucial. Others will disagree. But in bringing up the database topic and such, I was only pointing out what I personally consider to be essential and what I consider Rockbox to be missing.
I mean, some people think massive format support is great and incredible. Some people think gapless is critical. I am not one of those people. I just felt that it was important to say that, because I really would like to see open source projects get up to the level of the current closed source projects in terms of functionality and usability. If all the feedback is positive, then where does the improvement come from?
Hey, it's your project. You can do whatever you want, I would never presume to tell you otherwise. But if people giving honest evaluative feedback frustrates you, well, I really can't think of anything to say to that that doesn't sound negative and overly harsh.
This is gold! Just as I buy an iPod, Rockbox works on iPods
Gapless and vorbis are working a treat
All hail Rockbox!
How is the work going on the 3rd generation Ipods? Should I wait or trade up?
John
The 3rd gen port is being developed.
Hey, it's your project. You can do whatever you want, I would never presume to tell you otherwise. But if people giving honest evaluative feedback frustrates you, well, I really can't think of anything to say to that that doesn't sound negative and overly harsh.
My frustration is simply that I agree with you - tag-based browsing and smart playlists are a Good Thing. You don't need to keep trying to persuade me
Man I just saw this thread. mpc support on an ipod? I never thought I'd see that day.
Congrats rockbox people!
I'll have to look back soon to see if you figured out the audio on the video ipods.
Man I just saw this thread. mpc support on an ipod? I never thought I'd see that day.
Congrats rockbox people!
I'll have to look back soon to see if you figured out the audio on the video ipods.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=365096"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Audio works fine on my iPod video...
Man I just saw this thread. mpc support on an ipod? I never thought I'd see that day.
Congrats rockbox people!
I'll have to look back soon to see if you figured out the audio on the video ipods.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=365096"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Audio works fine on my iPod video...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=365227"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Aye, same here
This looks really interesting.
Too bad I'm unable to test it, since it only support Windows and not Mac formatted iPod's!
This looks really interesting.
Too bad I'm unable to test it, since it only support Windows and not Mac formatted iPod's!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=365327"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Surely you can borrow use of a windows pc from a friend or family member for a few minutes??
Reformat your ipod with the ipod updater to FAT format (it will still work on your mac fine). Setup Rockbox following the guide.
To upadte to newer rockbox versions, you can do this on your mac. Just extract the new builds onto the ipod and your set.
Kristian
kritip. Thats an option, but I prefer to stay away from FAT32.
Afterall I switched to Mac to get a rest from all the problems with Microsoft related products.
I'll just watch the Rockbox development closely and hope they add HFS support to their bootloader code soon!
I'll just watch the Rockbox development closely and hope they add HFS support to their bootloader code soon!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=365542"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I suggest you don't wait too eagerly for this one... For our bootloader to have HFS support, Rockbox itself also needs HFS support. Adding a new filesystem driver is a really big job, and no one of the current iPod developers use HFS iPods.
kritip. Thats an option, but I prefer to stay away from FAT32.
Afterall I switched to Mac to get a rest from all the problems with Microsoft related products.
I'll just watch the Rockbox development closely and hope they add HFS support to their bootloader code soon!
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=365542"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think you are underestimating just how much work would be involved to add support for a completely new filesystem in Rockbox. This kind of code is hard to write, and any bugs could potentially result in you losing all the data on your ipod.
Also, none of the current developers have any reason to invest the time in adding HFS support to Rockbox - we are all happy with FAT32.
That's not to say it will never happen, just that it needs a new developer to come along willing to invest the time and energy to do it. IMO, that time and energy would be better spent adding other features to Rockbox.
@preglow and davechapman. I'm no coder, so I might not have any idea how much work this is.
Neither did I know, before now, that none of you Rockbox developers are Mac users.
I just thought that since the iPod is an Apple product, it would be an idea to support Apple's primary file system as well!
What gen iPod do you have? Don't most new iPod's use FAT32?
What gen iPod do you have? Don't most new iPod's use FAT32?
I have two, a 4GB iPod nano and a 4GB iPod mini.
Its just recently that new iPod come with Windows (FAT32) file system. My iPod mini and all my previous iPod's came with Mac (HFS) file system, while my iPod nano came with Windows file system.
If you ever updated the iPod firmware there is no way getting back (on a Mac). Simply because the iPod Software Updater dont allow you to restore the Windows file system.
kritip. Thats an option, but I prefer to stay away from FAT32.
Afterall I switched to Mac to get a rest from all the problems with Microsoft related products.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=365542"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why? FAT32 for all its faults is basic but well documented and understood. I can even recover deleted data using a hex editor by hand, try that using HFS.
FAT32 isn't a Microsoft 'product', it's a specification. And seeing as even Apple use it by default on the latest ipods (like mine) I think your reasoning is a bit ridiculous.
seanyseansean. I guess you're a Windows and not a Mac user, right?
Or else would have known its not possible to restore an iPod for Windows on Mac OS X.
Thats the first point stopping me from trying Rockbox.
This discussion is going nowhere.
Because some of guys obviously dont understand that the prefered and best file system for Mac is HFS. Not FAT32!
...and Apple have made it difficult for us to use something else.
I must be missing something. I thought that Apple did away with the two different versions of iPods for Mac/PC.
I bought an iPod Mini 2nd gen. Originally I used it on a PC (FAT32).
When I moved over to my new iMac two months ago, I did a restore on it and had it formatted with HFS.
As far as I know, there is nothing stopping a Mac from formatting an iPod that used to be on a PC.
What gen iPod do you have? Don't most new iPod's use FAT32?
I have two, a 4GB iPod nano and a 4GB iPod mini.
Its just recently that new iPod come with Windows (FAT32) file system. My iPod mini and all my previous iPod's came with Mac (HFS) file system, while my iPod nano came with Windows file system.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=365597"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
All Ipods since the 3G have used FAT32 + HFS+. You can format it either way. Realistically you should be using FAT32 since that is supported on Windows, Linux and MacOS while HFS has less support and no advantages.
If you ever updated the iPod firmware there is no way getting back (on a Mac). Simply because the iPod Software Updater dont allow you to restore the Windows file system.
Thats ridiculous. Just format it on a Mac. Its just a hard disk. You don't need to do a software update for that.
seanyseansean. I guess you're a Windows and not a Mac user, right?
Or else would have known its not possible to restore an iPod for Windows on Mac OS X.
Why do you think think that?
This discussion is going nowhere.
Because some of guys obviously dont understand that the prefered and best file system for Mac is HFS. Not FAT32!
...and Apple have made it difficult for us to use something else.
Yes and the prefered and best file system for the Ipod is FAT32. Not HFS+! So whats your point?
I must be missing something. I thought that Apple did away with the two different versions of iPods for Mac/PC.
I bought an iPod Mini 2nd gen. Originally I used it on a PC (FAT32).
When I moved over to my new iMac two months ago, I did a restore on it and had it formatted with HFS.
As far as I know, there is nothing stopping a Mac from formatting an iPod that used to be on a PC.
You're not, Apple did do away with the two Ipod types, and krmathis is mistaken.
Apparently, a iPodLinux developer is working on HFS support in the bootloader. I have no idea where it is at but there is someone working on it albeit a different project.
First thank you very much RockBox developers!!!
I've been happily using RockBox on my 4G since it became publicly available and have just upgraded to a 5G. Has anyone else noticed that on the 5G the audio is mono? I realize that development is in an early stage, but I've seen more than a few posts stating that the audio is working fine on the 5G and I want to make sure that i am not the only one experiencing mono playback.
Anyone else with mono playback on the 5G?
Cheers,
Pete
All Ipods since the 3G have used FAT32 + HFS+. You can format it either way.
Thats only partly correct.
The 3G iPod was delivered with a HFS+ file system, so a Mac user had no option to use a FAT32 file system. But a Windows user had to use the iPod Software Updater to format with FAT32.
Realistically you should be using FAT32 since that is supported on Windows, Linux and MacOS while HFS has less support and no advantages.
My iPod is only used on a Mac, so I see no need for FAT32 file system.
On the other side, as mentioned multiple times, its not possible to format the iPod for FAT32 on a Mac.
If you ever updated the iPod firmware there is no way getting back (on a Mac). Simply because the iPod Software Updater dont allow you to restore the Windows file system. wink.gif
Thats ridiculous. Just format it on a Mac. Its just a hard disk. You don't need to do a software update for that.
Why is that ridiculous.
The hidden boot partition where the iPod firmware (and Rockbox) are stored cant be formatted to FAT32 on a Mac. Ok, the main partition can be formatted to FAT32, but since the boot partition still are HFS+ its of no use.
seanyseansean. I guess you're a Windows and not a Mac user, right?
Or else would have known its not possible to restore an iPod for Windows on Mac OS X.
Why do you think think that?
Because if he was a Mac user he would most probably know that the iPod Software Updater dont allow us to format the iPod with FAT32 file system.
So once you go HFS+ (standard on the first iPod's, or if you updated the firmware), there is no way to get a FAT32 file system. For that you need a Windows computer.
This discussion is going nowhere.
Because some of guys obviously dont understand that the prefered and best file system for Mac is HFS. Not FAT32!
...and Apple have made it difficult for us to use something else.
Yes and the prefered and best file system for the Ipod is FAT32. Not HFS+! So whats your point?
If its the prefered file system for iPod's connected to a Mac, why dont Apple allow us to update the firmware on a FAT32 formatted iPod?
So that tell me that FAT32 is the prefered (only) file system on Windows, while HFS+ is the prefered file system for Mac.
I must be missing something. I thought that Apple did away with the two different versions of iPods for Mac/PC.
I bought an iPod Mini 2nd gen. Originally I used it on a PC (FAT32).
When I moved over to my new iMac two months ago, I did a restore on it and had it formatted with HFS.
As far as I know, there is nothing stopping a Mac from formatting an iPod that used to be on a PC.
You're not, Apple did do away with the two Ipod types, and krmathis is mistaken.
Why am I mistaken?
As chrisgeleven say, there is nothing stopping a Mac from formatting an iPod that used to be on a PC.
What I say is that there is no way for a Mac to format an iPod that used to be on a Mac to be used on a PC (windows). The iPod Software Updater dont have such an option.
So to sum up:
* A FAT32 formatted iPod can be used on both Windows and Mac OS X (and other).
* A FAT32 formatted iPod cant be updated to a later firmware from Mac OS X.
* A HFS+ formatted iPod cant be restored to FAT32 from Mac OS X.
* To format an iPod for FAT32 you need a Windows computer.
So in the end the best choice for a Mac user are to use a HFS+ formatted iPod.
So in the end the best choice for a Mac user are to use a HFS+ formatted iPod.
I agree - Apple don't make it easy for a Mac user to use FAT32 on their iPod.
But until after someone volunteers to spend a considerable amount of their free time implementing HFS support in Rockbox, there are no other options than to convert your ipod to FAT32.
However, there does seem to be a need for a utility to help Mac users with this conversion. There is a tool available for Linux that does exactly this, but it will probably need a little work to get it working in Mac OS:
http://ipod-on-linux.sourceforge.net/ (http://ipod-on-linux.sourceforge.net/)
But at least that tool will document the steps needed.
There will eventually be a GUI installer for Rockbox on the iPod. My plan is for this to be cross-platform and that could potentially also take care of the conversion from HFS to FAT32. But that's also a long way into the future.
Thats only partly correct.
The 3G iPod was delivered with a HFS+ file system, so a Mac user had no option to use a FAT32 file system. But a Windows user had to use the iPod Software Updater to format with FAT32.
My 3G iPod came with a FAT32 filesystem. From the factory.
On the other side, as mentioned multiple times, its not possible to format the iPod for FAT32 on a Mac.
True, however it's quite possible to restore the thing to HFS+ if you like. And regardless, you can format the thing manually to FAT32 on any platform, if you want to use Rockbox.
Why is that ridiculous.
The hidden boot partition where the iPod firmware (and Rockbox) are stored cant be formatted to FAT32 on a Mac. Ok, the main partition can be formatted to FAT32, but since the boot partition still are HFS+ its of no use.
Rockbox does not live on the boot partition. It lives on the data partition, which it expects to be FAT32. The only change Rockbox makes is to the bootloader, which lives on the first sector of the drive and is independant of filesystem.
Because if he was a Mac user he would most probably know that the iPod Software Updater dont allow us to format the iPod with FAT32 file system. So once you go HFS+ (standard on the first iPod's, or if you updated the firmware), there is no way to get a FAT32 file system. For that you need a Windows computer.
Or you could spend a few minutes learning how to format a drive manually. Really, I'm no fan of Macs, but you're making out like it's impossible to do this with a Mac, and you're simply wrong. It's not point and click, I grant you, but it's quite doable.
If its the prefered file system for iPod's connected to a Mac, why dont Apple allow us to update the firmware on a FAT32 formatted iPod?
Because you're doing something wrong, perhaps? You can update a FAT32 iPod using a Mac just fine. Admittedly, it converts it to HFS+ in the process if you use the Apple firmware updater.
So that tell me that FAT32 is the prefered (only) file system on Windows, while HFS+ is the prefered file system for Mac.
"Preferred" is a strong word. "Default" makes more sense. There's really no advantage to either filesystem in this particular case, they're both doing basically the same sort of things. While HFS+ is a more advanced filesystem than FAT32, it's also a bit slower (in theory), and in the particular case of the iPod, FAT32 would actually be the better choice. But the difference is so small that you can't really use the word "preferred" in any real sense of the term, especially when you're talking about using third party software like Rockbox in the first place.
So in the end the best choice for a Mac user are to use a HFS+ formatted iPod.
Sorry, but that just doesn't make much sense. You might want to download the latest iPod firmware updater program, it sounds like you have a very old version or something. FAT32 is the default nowadays for iPod's. It has more support and just works better all around, on both Macs and PCs.
Noobish question here.
How is the (is there one?) battery issue with rockbox and mpc/vorbis-playback compared to standard mp3-playback and the original apple-software.
Does it use a lot more with vorbis/mpc? Or maybe even less with mpc?
This is a stupid issue considering the current state of rockbox in general, especially on the iPod - it barely works. Anyone who's going to mess around with 3rd party firmware for their iPod can reasonably be expected to perhaps have to jump through a few hoops to get it work. I'm an OS X user myself and although iPodLinux has working HFS+ support i think it's a bit unreasonable to expect it in rockbox anytime soon! It's far, far, far down the list of things on the priority tree.
Tip: you could probably use Virtual PC to format your ipod as FAT32 if it can connect by USB.
You can use a linux boot disc to format your ipod to fat32.. if you're that desperate.
I'm sure there are utils on the mac which can format in fat32 as well.
Noobish question here.
How is the (is there one?) battery issue with rockbox and mpc/vorbis-playback compared to standard mp3-playback and the original apple-software.
Does it use a lot more with vorbis/mpc? Or maybe even less with mpc?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=365800"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
At the moment, Rockbox on the iPod doesn't adjust the CPU frequency during playback - it's always running at 75MHz. This means that the only thing affecting runtime is the bitrate of the file - i.e. the amount of data needed to be read from the hard disk. 192kbps MPC, Vorbis and MP3 playback should all consume the same amount of power.
Someone is currently working on adjustable CPU frequency on the ipod, and when that happens, there will start to be differences between the codecs in terms of power consumption.
Currently, I would expect Rockbox to compare badly in terms of battery life to the Apple firmware - but we are only just starting to think about power management on the iPod, so hopefully we can narrow the gap in the future.
I got about 7.5 hours of mpc playback yesterday on my 30gb 5G if that helps. This was all serial access - full albums, not fettling around with the buttons all the time.
[SNIP]
[...]but we are only just starting to think about power management on the iPod, so hopefully we can narrow the gap in the future.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=365813"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That was a wonderfully informative answer and combined with seanyseansean's reply I've gotten all the info I needed. Thanks.
@davechapman and Otto42. So this should work?
1. Port the ipodpatcher applications to Mac OS (I pulled and compiled ipod_fw from cvs).
2. Extract the iPod firmware with ipodpatcher, add the Rockbox bootloader code with ipod_fw. Then write it back to the iPod boot partition with ipodpatcher.
3. Format the iPod main partition to FAT32 with Disk Utility.
Then I should have a fully working iPod with both Rockbox and the original iPod firmware. Right?
I cant figure out how to access the boot partition, as I cant find its mount point.
Or else could possible use dd instead of ipodpatcher
@davechapman and Otto42. So this should work?
1. Port the ipodpatcher applications to Mac OS (I pulled and compiled ipod_fw from cvs).
2. Extract the iPod firmware with ipodpatcher, add the Rockbox bootloader code with ipod_fw. Then write it back to the iPod boot partition with ipodpatcher.
3. Format the iPod main partition to FAT32 with Disk Utility.
Then I should have a fully working iPod with both Rockbox and the original iPod firmware. Right?
I cant figure out how to access the boot partition, as I cant find its mount point.
Or else could possible use dd instead of ipodpatcher
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=365836")
I've used a FAT32 iPod on a Mac, but I've never converted one from HFS to FAT32, so I can't help you with the conversion stage.
Regarding the installation of Rockbox itself, ipodpatcher is very specific to Windows. For Mac OS, I've written a utility which is equivalent to ipodpatcher, but I haven't released it yet - I want to find the time to merge the Mac specific code with ipodpatcher to create a single utility.
As you've discovered, Mac OS hides the boot partition from you, so dd won't work.
Drop by #rockbox on IRC (see [a href="http://www.rockbox.org/irc/)]http://www.rockbox.org/irc/)[/url] and I can let you have a copy of the source - I've used it to install the Rockbox bootloader from Mac OS. My nick there is linuxstb
So using Disk Utility on Mac OS X to reformat the iPod to FAT32 won't work for this? You need access to a hidden partition?
Dave & Sean (or any other 5G owners),
Can I get comfirmation about the playback status of the 5G. So far every build up to the current (2/20), seems to be giving mono playback. Is anyone else experiencing this or am I all alone?
Just to be clear, this is not a complaint as I realize that all this is in the very early stages. I am just looking to confirm the current status.
Cheers,
Pete
Can I get comfirmation about the playback status of the 5G. So far every build up to the current (2/20), seems to be giving mono playback. Is anyone else experiencing this or am I all alone?
Yes - it's a widely reported problem. It's high up on my list of bugs to investigate.
EDIT: After a short investigation, I think I've found the problem. The output of both the left and right DACs was being sent to both the left and right output mixers - obviously giving mono playback.... That's now fixed in Rockbox CVS, so the next "bleeding edge" build (or tonight's Daily Build) will include the fix.
Thank you Dave! You and the RockBox team are really doing some amazing work.
Cheers,
Pete
Thank you Dave! You and the RockBox team are really doing some amazing work.
Cheers,
Pete
finally I got a 4gb ipod nano and am using it right now with the rockbox firmware. now I have a state-of-the-art device with a firmware that is up on time too! some small problems are there but now I can play my ogg-vorbis files gaplessly with RG on an ipod. this is amazing! thank you!!
geeky audio bliss, innit?
geeky audio bliss, innit?
that's my third ipod and now it is almost perfect!
It's my first and I think it will be my last, lol. This is overall a decent Apple offering but I would prefer expandable memory, FM radio, decent line-in recording and a more easily replaceable battery as well as a device that doesn't throw a fit almost everytime its disconnected from a PC.