Welcome to the Rockbox Technical Forums!
WMA is the same or less CPU intensive as well to encode and less to decode and render.The reasons for this are pretty simple, so I don't have to explain
It would be interesting if it was easy to add your own codecs to Rockbox for testing purposes, I'm sure there's ways but I'm not much of a software developer/tester, or programmer or anything else.
Even Vorbis is less CPU intensive than WMA according to that chart,
Quote from: dangerousd777 on February 02, 2009, 10:08:06 PMIt would be interesting if it was easy to add your own codecs to Rockbox for testing purposes, I'm sure there's ways but I'm not much of a software developer/tester, or programmer or anything else.Its not that difficult compared to actually writing them.Quote from: dangerousd777 on February 02, 2009, 10:08:06 PMEven Vorbis is less CPU intensive than WMA according to that chart,Which chart?
I'd like to see either WMA or Ogg Vorbis implemented, but if not then I'll have to deal with Mp3.
The Codec Performance Comparison chart in the Rockbox TWiki that you posted the link to, I took a quick glance at the Sansa e260s stats and even Ogg Vorbis beats out WMA.
Quote from: dangerousd777 on February 04, 2009, 12:10:40 AMThe Codec Performance Comparison chart in the Rockbox TWiki that you posted the link to, I took a quick glance at the Sansa e260s stats and even Ogg Vorbis beats out WMA.Testing WMA now, I get about 265% real time on the Sansa. Looking at that page, the only numbers for WMA are from 18 months ago right after I added it to Rockbox.
decoding speed != encoding speedYes, converting to fixed point is a very big job. I doubt many people would bother as you can already either record to MP3, or record to wavpack (lossless) then compress later. Still if someone did, it would of course be welcomed.Quote from: dangerousd777 on February 04, 2009, 12:10:40 AMI'd like to see either WMA or Ogg Vorbis implemented, but if not then I'll have to deal with Mp3.Best get coding then!
Note: I figure I could always resample the sample frequency, encode to whichever format of my preference and change from mono to stereo. I'm still interested in this subject however, much more feasible than the video formats, seeing as those would be restricted by hardware limitations such as available computational power of the Sansa e200.
QuoteNote: I figure I could always resample the sample frequency, encode to whichever format of my preference and change from mono to stereo. I'm still interested in this subject however, much more feasible than the video formats, seeing as those would be restricted by hardware limitations such as available computational power of the Sansa e200.You could, but this wouldn't magically make the sound any higher fidelity, it'd be exactly the same but take up more filesize.
Quote from: evilnick on February 05, 2009, 09:51:30 AMQuoteNote: I figure I could always resample the sample frequency, encode to whichever format of my preference and change from mono to stereo. I'm still interested in this subject however, much more feasible than the video formats, seeing as those would be restricted by hardware limitations such as available computational power of the Sansa e200.You could, but this wouldn't magically make the sound any higher fidelity, it'd be exactly the same but take up more filesize.Well I did resample one 22050 hz file (it was music) and it did sound a bit better afterwards.True there isn't much of a point.
Page created in 0.104 seconds with 21 queries.