Rockbox Technical Forums
Support and General Use => Audio Playback, Database and Playlists => Topic started by: Marsdaddy on March 13, 2006, 10:54:37 AM
-
Just to let you know...
I've started work on a fixed point WMA decoder. It's essentially a conversion of the WMA decoder from the ffmpeg project. I intend to get it working stand alone and "float free" before probably submitting it for others to incorporate into rockbox.
That's the plan anyway. Don't hold your breath, I get very little free time, etc. etc. I reserve the right to get bored and give up!
Seriously though, lack of WMA bugs me in rockbox so I am going to give this a serious shot. I've already made some progress and will try to keep you posted... ::)
-
Score one point for those who've been saying "If someone wants it badly enough, they'll start working on it."
But seriously man, if you do get a fixed point decoder working, that's one step closer to making a lot of non-me people very happy. (I'm satisfied with vorbis.) :)
-
Cool. Consider contributing your code back to ffmpeg (or maintain it as a separate project), because I'm sure Rockbox isn't the only project that could use a free fixed-point WMA decoder.
-
Cool! Keep us posted, however it goes. ;D
-
why you should do something thats already done - http://forums.rockbox.org/index.php?topic=1258.msg11398#msg11398
-
why you should do something thats already done - http://forums.rockbox.org/index.php?topic=1258.msg11398#msg11398
Well, yes I have looked at that but there were a couple of issues:-
(1) It looks like it might have been based on an old version on the floating point decoder as there are some bugs in there that I've had to fix in the version I got
(2) Err... it's littered with floats still, all over the code ::). I can see there has been some work on fixed point, but it's very much a work in progress.
-
Excellent news, Marsdaddy! I wish you good luck!
Please keep us updated :P ,
MU4L
-
Thanks for all your interest!
Just to let you know I'm making pretty good progress, I currently have a hybrid decoder which is mainly integer based. A couple of tough problems to overcome and I should be there...
Watch this space.
-
*trembles with excitement*
I'm just one of many helpless chaps who has zilch in the way of coding knowledge/experience, but who has a fair few WMA's in their collection (folly of youth and all that ;) ), so to see some actual progress on a WMA decoder is awesome.
Perhaps (at last) I can finally enjoy the whole of my collection within the Rockbox Firmware rather than having to shutdown and re-boot into the vastly inferior iRiver FW,
Kudos, and good luck (again),
ManchesterUnited4Life
-
Man, I'd personally rather just spend the few days reencoding from source rather than have to switch back and forth to play my music.
-
Man, I'd personally rather just spend the few days reencoding from source rather than have to switch back and forth to play my music.
Well I have re-encoded what I can (from source, of course) to either -q6 ogg, or 192+KBpS LAME VBR mp3.
What I have left are 106 WMA files (out of a collection of around 7,000) that I no longer own either the cassette, or CD's I created thereof, with which to re-encode.
In any case, WMA is the preferred codec of a quite a few people (whether by choice, or by unintentional ignorance), which I'm sure is why the progress of this decoder will be followed with anticipation.
It would also open up new doors for Rockbox, in terms of prospective users, who may have been put off by the intensive process of re-encoding ...
Either way, I wish Marsdaddy the best in overcoming the problems he/she may be encountering
-
Yeah, I'm definitely looking forward to WMA support, just so there's no disadvantage (in audio capability) to using Rockbox with most targets.
Though I'm curious, you say some use it by choice. As far as I can tell, most double blind listening tests have had WMA come up a decent amount lower than LAME MP3 and OGG in a lot of bitrate categories, if not almost all of them. Since there's no question that MP3 is more widely supported, what are the benefits of WMA?
-
Though I'm curious, you say some use it by choice. As far as I can tell, most double blind listening tests have had WMA come up a decent amount lower than LAME MP3 and OGG in a lot of bitrate categories, if not almost all of them. Since there's no question that MP3 is more widely supported, what are the benefits of WMA?
Just before I begin, I'd like to say that you're preaching to the converted (even that's not to say I wasn't to begin with, though ;) ), Llorean.
To be fair, the layman doesn't have the equipment to carry out *accurate* double-blind/ABX testing, nor are they willing to. According to them, if there's a minor discrepancy (in terms of SQ), then that's what it is - minor. Why exert any more effort, if, at the end of it all, the result is a minor amelioration? This situation is even more appropriate when talking in contemporary terms, of the majority of AAC/iTunes/iPod users.
Another example; in the early days when we were dealing with MP3 players that held mega- rather than giga- bytes of storage, and before OGG and LAME were widely supported on portable units, a balance was required between having decent SQ output and small filesize. With stock headphones, the difference between 128KBpS MP3, and 64KBpS WMA (as was often compared by Microsoft), was negligible. The 'choice' then, was simple. It might not be the case today, but the saying remains true, in that old habits die hard. Even if people *did* later realise the difference, it is far easier to click on a drop-down box in WMP (to increase Bitrate), than to go digging around for new codecs/rippers.
Personally, I've been using MP3 (and MP3 players) since '98, first experiencing WMA encoding in 2001. I encoded quite a bit into WMA, since it allowed for far more music onto my 32, 64 and 128MB MPMan players. I did toy around with MP3 transcoding, but even with crappy stock headphones, the difference was massive, and ruined the point of listening to music in the first place.
When I bought my iRiver iHP-120 + EX71's back in February '04, I was finally able to hear the drastic difference in sound between WMA and MP3/OGG. OGG was a new experience to me at the time, and being one of the last of a dying breed, I actually got of my proverbial back side, and did some research.
From that day to this I've not ripped to WMA, and have re-encoded the CD's I still own (in the files and bitrates aforementioned). FLAC and WAVpack are relatively new to me, so I have no relevant files. I also don't have the appropriate equipment to enjoy FLAC and WAVpack (being a poor student) ;) ...
MU4L,
P.S. I see I haven't actually answered your question ;D - sorry, I guess you'll have to ask a die-hard WMA user :P
-
Well, I'm not arguing against WMA by any means. If there are valid reasons for using it more power to those who do.
I definitely understand the "I don't own earphones good enough to hear the difference between 128mp3 and 64wma" argument.
As to the double blind thing, I guess I was just making the assumption that the "don't know better" category encompassed anyone who didn't research their audio format choice up front. ;)
-
Well, as far as this debate goes, I feel that whatever you think about WMA, if Rockbox supported it that would help some who are cautious about using Rockbox to make the switch.
As far as my work on the decoder goes - I now have a fixed point decoder ;). Here's what is left to do:-
1) Test it on a wider variety of WMAs - I've only used a very small number and I know there are code paths in there that haven't been tried, and will almost certainly fail.
2) Optimise it further and tidy it up
3) Incorporate it into Rockbox - I've started to look at this and think that I will tackle this myself.
I reckon that it'll be a couple of works before there could be a version of Rockbox with WMA suport. Not sure what the protocol is for getting my changes into CVS.
-
I'm sure that if you made a package of what you have, there will be lots of other people interested to help out getting it added to Rockbox.
I also suggest using IRC and the rockbox-dev mailing list for detailed dev support and assistance.
Very nice work!
-
I'm sure that if you made a package of what you have, there will be lots of other people interested to help out getting it added to Rockbox.
Yes thanks, I will have a go at doing it myself as I'd like to understand the rockbox architecture, but if I run out of time or whatever I'll pass it over.
-
To be fair, the layman doesn't have the equipment to carry out *accurate* double-blind/ABX testing, nor are they willing to. According to them, if there's a minor discrepancy (in terms of SQ), then that's what it is - minor. Why exert any more effort, if, at the end of it all, the result is a minor amelioration? This situation is even more appropriate when talking in contemporary terms, of the majority of AAC/iTunes/iPod users.
You just need a computer, headphones, and a WMA decoder. Anyone listening to WMA has all three of these, so I don't follow your point.
Another example; in the early days when we were dealing with MP3 players that held mega- rather than giga- bytes of storage, and before OGG and LAME were widely supported on portable units, a balance was required between having decent SQ output and small filesize. With stock headphones, the difference between 128KBpS MP3, and 64KBpS WMA (as was often compared by Microsoft), was negligible. The 'choice' then, was simple. It might not be the case today, but the saying remains true, in that old habits die hard. Even if people *did* later realise the difference, it is far easier to click on a drop-down box in WMP (to increase Bitrate), than to go digging around for new codecs/rippers.
AFAIK there has never been a DAP that supported WMA but not LAME. And its definately debateable that WMA was ever a better choice. WMA generally ties for last place with LAME in most low bitrate listening tests, and thats the much newer WMAv3 codec. Its not clear that WMA was ever a viable low bitrate codec given that fhg had their IS low bitrate MP3 codec out first, and then LAME came out. Only exception I can think of is maybe at 32kbps (did you really go that low for music?).
-
The protocol is to create a patch and submit it to the tracker. You might also want to join the IRC channel if you have any questions about the codec infrastructure.
Will be very cool to see this integrated as it's the second last feature (video being the last one) that a lot of new people ask for.
-
To be fair, the layman doesn't have the equipment to carry out *accurate* double-blind/ABX testing, nor are they willing to. According to them, if there's a minor discrepancy (in terms of SQ), then that's what it is - minor. Why exert any more effort, if, at the end of it all, the result is a minor amelioration? This situation is even more appropriate when talking in contemporary terms, of the majority of AAC/iTunes/iPod users.
You just need a computer, headphones, and a WMA decoder. Anyone listening to WMA has all three of these, so I don't follow your point.
I'm talking about portable audio players, though. Perhaps I should have made that clear in the initial post.
Another example; in the early days when we were dealing with MP3 players that held mega- rather than giga- bytes of storage, and before OGG and LAME were widely supported on portable units, a balance was required between having decent SQ output and small filesize. With stock headphones, the difference between 128KBpS MP3, and 64KBpS WMA (as was often compared by Microsoft), was negligible. The 'choice' then, was simple. It might not be the case today, but the saying remains true, in that old habits die hard. Even if people *did* later realise the difference, it is far easier to click on a drop-down box in WMP (to increase Bitrate), than to go digging around for new codecs/rippers.
AFAIK there has never been a DAP that supported WMA but not LAME. And its definately debateable that WMA was ever a better choice. WMA generally ties for last place with LAME in most low bitrate listening tests, and thats the much newer WMAv3 codec. Its not clear that WMA was ever a viable low bitrate codec given that fhg had their IS low bitrate MP3 codec out first, and then LAME came out. Only exception I can think of is maybe at 32kbps (did you really go that low for music?).
Point 1) I don't remember my MPMan players ever supporting LAME (but supported WMA, obviously).
Point 2) WMA *was* a better choice, IMHO, considering that it achieved a balance between filesize and bearable audio quality (versus 128KBpS MP3) with the stock earbuds.
Point 3) The lowest I ever decoded to was 40KBpS mp3 CBR ...
Mad props to Marsdaddy - looking forward to seeing the patch in the near future :) !
MU4L
-
A while back I had to consider in what format I would want to store my music collection on my mp3 player (a H120 back then), and I decided to a) listen to the different formats and b) consider the file size to make a decision (I knew it would be at least 5-6000 files).
So first I listened to all available formats and found out that in contrary to common opinion I liked wma-files the most. So I gave a sh... on common opinions and just had to make the decision to go for 64 or 128 kbps. Actually the file size of the 64 kbps made me use this format, as it gave me the opportunity to store all files on my 20 Gig player.
I believe that wma files are better than their reputation and should not be crucified only becasue they are from Microsoft.
Anyway Rockbox made me re-convert all my files to mp3 (having a H340 with 8500 files now this brought me close to the edge) and I am VERY happy with it. Nevertheless if there was wma-support in Rockbox I would immediately switch back.
So Cheers to Marsdaddy!
-
Agreed, nice work. I look forward to WMA support. I'm not a big fan of WMA and only have about 5 WMA tracks, but they're things I don't have alternative versions of and it'd be cool to be able to play them on the move.
(My other 450 albums are FLAC. :))
-
Excellent work! I look forward to WMA support. :)
-
I'm really looking forward to seeing this, Marsdaddy (even though I only have one WMA...). Please let me know if you require any help on the Rockbox codec system or want a tester. Nice work!
And BTW, I'd be more than happy to help in optimising it for the different target platforms.
-
That's really great news! I also don't have more than 10 WMA files (and dislike the format), however the fact, that Rockbox will support every notable (for the masses) codec in the near future (I'm assuming aac will work reliably too, someday.) is THE killer feature for ordinary people to go Rockbox!
And WMA has one big advantage: You don't have to learn, or download "s***" to use it and every hardware player except the iPods supports it. For many people not having to learn or donwload stuff just to be able to carry their music around with them is a killer argument.
Also most of the MP3 players and stock earbuds owned by the masses make the differences between WMA and e.g. LAME virtually indistinguishable for the average untrained listener.
-
Yeah, v. nice work Mars! I knew I didn't design a WMA icon in my WPS for nothing :).
-
I reckon that it'll be a couple of works before there could be a version of Rockbox with WMA suport. Not sure what the protocol is for getting my changes into CVS.
Cool. Any progress?
As for getting it into rockbox.. http://forums.rockbox.org/index.php?topic=3127.0
I'm sure that once you get a working patch in the buck tracker, stuff will start happening as WMA support would really help convert some people over.
Josh
-
This is another piece of great news in the history of rockbox! - Excellent work. Looking forward to try this out.
-
Cool. Any progress?
Progress is that I have a version of rockbox on my machine that has a WMA codec in it but it is not integrated into the rockbox infrastructure completely (yet) :)
I am hoping to get the WMA codec in as a patch very soon, but initially it will not do anything (ie standalone decoder).
So - I am working mainly on getting ASF support into the infrastructure rather than working on the decoder, which may well have a few bugs in it.
-
I still think you should post the patch as it is now so others may help in fixing problems/bugs. I know there is a vast number of people waiting for this (myself not included, but still) and you'll be an instant rockbox hero..;)
I'll gladly add it to my H3x0 build so the iRiver masses can have a crack at it.. The more (bug) reports you get the faster it's gonna be working perfectly I would think..
-
Here is an update, as promised!
I submitted a version of "libwma" to the tracker on Saturday and it was suggested that rather than integrate straightaway into the rockbox codec architecture, I should write a plugin to test the decoder for accuracy and speed.
Well, I've now written a "wma2wav" plugin, which is working on my simulator build.
Next step is to try it on a real device (iRiver H340) to see if it's up to the job. Listening to the WAV output I think it's a little "rough", I need to do something a bit more scientific with the output.
When I have wma2wav working and have more faith in the decoder, I shall make a patch of it.
And that is the end of the news. ;D
-
Awesome news!
Assuming you can get your iRiver to record the PCM samples, you could compare the output to WMP. Do you have matlab? You could pretty easily use the wavread() command on your output and WMP's and then go sample by sample to see how close you are. I doubt you'll be sample exact since theres fp involved in the WMP decoder most likely, but assuming you're within a bit or two, I doubt anyone will mind :)
Edit: new = news
-
Great work Marsdaddy - look forward to the patch :D !!!
-
Fantastic news! Keep up the good work, we all appreciate it! ;D
-
Further update for those awaiting this!
I have completed the plugin WMA decoder and have been banging my head against the wall for the last few days because although the code compiles and runs fine in the uisimulator, it won't compile for my platform, the iRiver H340. For the technically minded, it causes an internal compiler error "insn does not satisfy its constraints".
I have been attempting to come up with test code that exhibits the problem but of course it does not show when I isolate the code. I will continue to rework/reorder the code until I get it to generate correctly.
Wish me luck ???
-
If you just produce a package/patch with what you have that shows the problem, I'm sure there are several people around that can help you.
Cooperation is what makes open source different you know!
-
Good luck and excellent work!
But here's a suggestion: Why not show your code to the other ROCKbox devs here? They already have a great deal of experience working with the H300's and may be able to show you where you're going wrong, and will speed up your learning process and development time. :)
-
Further update for those awaiting this!
I have completed the plugin WMA decoder and have been banging my head against the wall for the last few days because although the code compiles and runs fine in the uisimulator, it won't compile for my platform, the iRiver H340. For the technically minded, it causes an internal compiler error "insn does not satisfy its constraints".
I have been attempting to come up with test code that exhibits the problem but of course it does not show when I isolate the code. I will continue to rework/reorder the code until I get it to generate correctly.
Wish me luck ???
I've came up against these problems with porting the AAC codec - it's due to bugs in the m68k version of gcc.
One thing that worked was to ensure that the signedness of variables was consistent - i.e. removing comparisons between signed and unsigned variables seems to tickle gcc into submission.
Otherwise, just try randomly changing your code...
But as Daniel said, if you post a package of your source so far, then others would be happy to help.
-
I've came up against these problems with porting the AAC codec - it's due to bugs in the m68k version of gcc.
One thing that worked was to ensure that the signedness of variables was consistent - i.e. removing comparisons between signed and unsigned variables seems to tickle gcc into submission.
Thanks for this - I've made some modifications and it's got me past the original problem onto some more constraints violations. Thanks again for the suggestion 8)
-
Just wondering if there was any more news on the progression front, Marsdaddy :) ?
Hope everything's going well,
MU4L
-
Just wondering if there was any more news on the progression front, Marsdaddy :) ?
Hope everything's going well,
Yes everything is going well but slowly... I was not expecting that the compiler used for the iRiver would have serious bugs in it! Anyway - I've got a plugin that compiles and runs fine in the simulator but barfs and dies on the H300 -- I am making progress but it's taking longer than I hoped.
So good news of sorts. I'll keep you posted - and the help I've had from the rockbox community has been invaluable ;)
-
hell yea!!!. i only found out about rockbox a week ago and was dissapointed that it didnt support wma. alot of my collection is in mp3 but i have about 10 albums that are all wma and to convert from wma to mp3 i wouldnt think would be a good idea so keep up the good work m8
-
Another update for all those wondering where this has got to...
Today I decoded a WMA file on my H300 via a plugin I've written :)
That's the good news, two current issues: -
1) The decoder is not accurate enough - I sort of knew this but wanted to carry on with getting the WMA decoder working in the simulator and H300 first. I have a plan for tackling this as I can debug another WMA decoder etc. etc.
2) The decoder is sllllloooooowwwww... too slow. Good news is there are a number of places in the code that optimisations can be made.
I will tackle issue (1) first then optimise the fixed version
As always, when there is something to tell you I will post here ;)
-
Brilliant news Marsdaddy, and good to see you getting on so well.
I look forward to hearing more news from you ;D.
MU4L
-
1) The decoder is not accurate enough - I sort of knew this but wanted to carry on with getting the WMA decoder working in the simulator and H300 first. I have a plan for tackling this as I can debug another WMA decoder etc. etc.
When I had a look at the patch, I noticed you only seem to use 32 bit multiplies everywhere. Might the precision problems be related to this? We usually use 64 bit muls pretty much everywhere we can.
2) The decoder is sllllloooooowwwww... too slow. Good news is there are a number of places in the code that optimisations can be made.
No surprise there. Almost all our codecs had to have quite some optimising before running well. How slow are we talking? I bet there are some people (me included) that'd love to help you in optimising it, so pretty please, aim to have it commited before you start working too much on this on your own :)
Nice work!
-
Yeah, and when Preglow offers to help optimize, you should accept. ;-)
-
Great work Marsdaddy! 8)
-
When I had a look at the patch, I noticed you only seem to use 32 bit multiplies everywhere. Might the precision problems be related to this? We usually use 64 bit muls pretty much everywhere we can.
It's not that kind of inaccuracy, which makes me think it's a simple bug -- I encoded a simple sine wave to wma which I then decoded to wav and compared to the original sine wave - it's smooth enough but every so often the sample becomes inverted. I will however probably switch to using 64 bit before submitting.
I appreciate the comment about optimisation and once I shake out these basic decoding bugs I will submit -- functionality before performance! ;)
Thank you all for your kind comments and interest - it's appreciated. Nice to be a small part of something good.
-
It's not that kind of inaccuracy, which makes me think it's a simple bug -- I encoded a simple sine wave to wma which I then decoded to wav and compared to the original sine wave - it's smooth enough but every so often the sample becomes inverted.
It sound to me like the sample value could be overflowing. I believe Musepack originally had a similar bug, which preglow fixed.
-
if this is integrated by the time 3.1 is released, it will make the first official build on iPod even better
-
I have 1000's of WMAs trapped inside my iRiver H320 / Rockbox, just deparate to be released ;)
Waiting in eager anticipation...
Thanks for your effort, Marsdaddy :)
-
I only have a few .wma's, but I think this is such a good feature for rockbox and for rockbox/open-source advocacy that I'll be making / downloading some more files just so that I can help test this. ;D
Keep up the good work! :)
-
Just another vote for wma,
My brother just gave me a bunch of wma files. He doesn't have the original source, so this codec for rockbox would be a life saver.
Cheers big ears.
-
I had a dream about this the other day ???
I've only got a few WMAs that I downloaded from the website of one particular artist. The other tracks by this guy I got from CDs. I can listen to half of his stuff in Rockbox or the other half in the original firmware. Too lazy to re-encode :P
Thanks for the work you're putting in, Marsdaddy. And everyone else for that matter.
-
I can't wait until this is finished. My friend just gave me a couple hundred wma's, and neither rockbox nor the apple firmware can play them. Since it looks like it's gonna be a long time since this is released, i guess my only choice is to convert them to ogg. Keep up the great work ;D.
-
Yeah, real-time WMA decoding would make Rockbox even more totally ass-kicking than it already is. Seriously Inno and iRiver should just ressurect the H1xx series with a better screen and a teeny circuit breaker (for protection against incorrect power input) and just sell it with Rockbox pre-installed. WMA support would absolutely rule! Thank you, good luck and may the god of your choosing speed your progress. ;)
-
Well, let's first see if Marsdaddy turns up here again. It's been over a month since his last post.
-
Sounds like your doing some great work marsdaddy - but if you've hit a brick wall or won't have the time to continue things for a while, i think there are a number of people anxiously anticipating this codec (including me) and also a number of people willing to lend a hand if you want. That aside i fully understand wanting to achieve it yourself, i'm exactly the same! keep up the good work.
-
This is a most exciting project you've undertaken, Marsdaddy. Please continue you work - this should be a huge deal when you get it working - remember when HP didn't add (enable, actually; since the PortalPlayer chip supports it natively) WMA support to the iPod despite the rumors? Just the rumors made a pretty big splash. I've been waiting for this ever since HP dropped that ball.
I would finally buy an iPod if/when this works.
-
It wouldn't allow you to play DRM-protected WMAs anyway.
And there are better formats for you to convert your CDs to, so WMA shouldn't really be a show-stopper from buying an MP3 player supported by Rockbox.
Also, where did you get that the PortalPlayer chip natively supports WMA? Are you using "supports" in the sense that it's a multipurpose processor and can decode anything someone writes a codec for?
-
Hey, if people have a lot of WMA, thers tonnes of programs out there that batch process your wma and conver them to .mp3, all you do is set the bitrate etc, and you can set it so it deletes the original wma's if you want it to. When you click start it should convert all the files you selected without any more input from you, so i guess that could help some people
There was one thing i noticed about .WMA support, on my really old philips 2GB jukebox (an evil entity that deserves to be punished eternally) on the box it made references to how much .wma's it could hold and how many.mp3's it could hold. For my jukebox it reckons it could hold 200 more .wmas than .mp3's not really sure why, because it based its 500 song capacity on songs at around 3-4 minutes long at 64kbps.... who listens to 64kbps!? 128 min for me 192 average then VBR for most
-
Hey, if people have a lot of WMA, thers tonnes of programs out there that batch process your wma and conver them to .mp3, all you do is set the bitrate etc,
Converting from one lossy format to another will result in low quality files, no matter what program you use to do it :(
h
-
I've done it with some albums and i've never seen a dip in quality however most of my .wmas i have were put to nearly the highest quality that they could go, so i dont know, my suggestion was just so people sitting on the fence about wma support would know there is an alternative... if they are so bothered they should just use the evil that is itunes and let that convert there music lol.....
-
Unless you were encoding an original from wma lossless (which would be the same as encoding from wav) There was a HUGE loss in quality. You may not notice it, but if you know what to listen for, its obvious.
Anyway, encoding them to a lossy format there is a loss in quality too, but it may not be as audible.
And, it this point if they were sitting on the fence BECAUSE OF wma support. I wouldn't reccomend anyone switching if it meant they had to transcode their files from lossless format to another lossless format. It would end up giving rockbox a bad name in their mind if they didn't understand what transcoding did. (it would appear that rockbox made their files sound bad)
On the other hand, if they are like me, and wma isn't that important. You can leave those files off your player until rockbox supports it, or encode the really important ones to a lossless format like flac or wavepack. That is in efficient, but the files would sound the same as the original.
I'd avoid itunes like the plague. lala.com is a good solution, you can trade for original copies of the source at $1.50/cd (shipping included). Otherwise, there are other stores that allow you to download lossless music as well.
-
I've done it with some albums and i've never seen a dip in quality however most of my .wmas i have were put to nearly the highest quality that they could go, so i dont know, my suggestion was just so people sitting on the fence about wma support would know there is an alternative... if they are so bothered they should just use the evil that is itunes and let that convert there music lol.....
It would be good if you could tell us what headphones you are using not to hear a difference. If you are using the supplied buds, then I can understand you not hearing much at all.
If I had some WMA that were important to me and could not re-rip, I would install iTunes, put those files on my iPod, then uninstall iTunes. That way I could play those files by booting to the iPod firmware.
h
-
iTunes would convert them as well though, so how is that a better solution?
-
iTunes would convert them as well though, so how is that a better solution?
iTunes has an old mp3 codec, so there are better solutions out there ;)
h
-
But you said that:
"I would install iTunes, put those files on my iPod, then uninstall iTunes. That way I could play those files by booting to the iPod firmware."
I was asking why you would use iTunes to convert.
-
I wouldnt convert them, just use iTunes to put them on there so I could use the iPod firmware to play them....
But as I wrote this I realised how silly that is, as the iPod firmware doesnt play wma either....
Still, to some extent, stuck in H320 thinking....
h
-
Yeah, if you tried to put the WMAs in iTunes, if it does *anything* it'll convert them to AAC. iTunes will convert files without your notice sometimes, if it's set to, I believe.
-
I only had it on my computer for 48 hours, then deleted it. I would not have bought an iPod except for Rockbox :)
I did have two albums I ripped at a friends place that were wma. One album I didnt like, so I deleted it, the other I did like, so I bought it and re-ripped it :)
h
-
Yeh i did use the original earphones lol so that really does explain why i dont hear the loss, but when i connect it to surround sound i notice dip in quality.
Really cant afford to get fancy earphones (im upgrading my archaic PC)
The only reason i use itunes is for videos coz well i got a whole tv series on there plus some japanese learning video podcasts lol.
at some point i might re rip my cd's to a better format, but unless i buy a better pair of earphones will i even notice a different?, i did have a couple of albums in FLAC but i couldnt hear a difference..
-
It wouldn't allow you to play DRM-protected WMAs anyway.
That's okay - I only have several thousand DRM-free WMAs from hand-ripped CDs.
And there are better formats for you to convert your CDs to, so WMA shouldn't really be a show-stopper from buying an MP3 player supported by Rockbox.
That's highly debateable and a personal preference at best. I meant that lack of WMA was a show-stopper for the iPod for myself and probably many others who don't take the time or don't have forum in which to mention it.
Also, where did you get that the PortalPlayer chip natively supports WMA? Are you using "supports" in the sense that it's a multipurpose processor and can decode anything someone writes a codec for?
I'm using "supports" in the sense that the chip (PP5021C-TDF (http://"http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/IpodHardwareInfo"), functionally similar to PP5020 (http://"http://ipodlinux.org/Generations")) is capable of (see PP5020 brief (http://"http://www.portalplayer.com/products/documents/5020_Brief_0108_Public.pdf") from PortalPlayer) "Real-time decoding of MP3, WMA, AAC, and ACELP.NET formats."
-
Most microprocessors are capable of decoding WMA realtime if they're above a certain speed. That's likely all that statement from PortalPlayer means. That a properly written WMA decoder should be able to maintain realtime playback of any valid WMA file on their chip. Not that the chip itself somehow supports the format.
As for "a personal preference at best", there is rather objective evidence that standard WMA is often outperformed by other codecs at many bitrates. Though this can depend on what format of music you have, and which encoders you choose, in _many_ cases it is more than merely "personal preference" that can make other codecs a good choice.
-
I would not have bought an iPod except for Rockbox :)
i feel the same way. i hate ipods because of the database view and i dont like the screens much. the only reason i got an ipod is because of rockbox.
-
Also, where did you get that the PortalPlayer chip natively supports WMA? Are you using "supports" in the sense that it's a multipurpose processor and can decode anything someone writes a codec for?
I'm using "supports" in the sense that the chip (PP5021C-TDF (http://"http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/IpodHardwareInfo"), functionally similar to PP5020 (http://"http://ipodlinux.org/Generations")) is capable of (see PP5020 brief (http://"http://www.portalplayer.com/products/documents/5020_Brief_0108_Public.pdf") from PortalPlayer) "Real-time decoding of MP3, WMA, AAC, and ACELP.NET formats."
So in other words, yes you're using it in exactly the sense Llorean suggested :)
-
Just out of curiosity (might be off topic a bit) I was wondering what is the personal preference for codecs on rockbox, personally most of my music is mp3. Whats are good codec for good quality/ good file size? I've used FLAC but on my iPod earphones theres not much difference, If I were to buy new earphones what ones get a good reccomendation?
Even if WMA is a lossy format, there could be lots of people like me who's music collection is in WMA and like you said converting it would cause further degradation, my pc is quite old and i had lots of music in WMA because i only played music on my pc as I've only recently jumped on the portable media wagon in the last couple of years, my first DAP was a sony mini disc player (the memories) then a Philips Jukebox( they are pure satanic evil, it went to the service centre 5 times) and now i have my 5G iPod which is basically now surgically attached to me as i never go anywhere with out it. But anyways i think this would some people who dont want to convert their music, if it ever gets implemented.
-
Just out of curiosity (might be off topic a bit) I was wondering what is the personal preference for codecs on rockbox, personally most of my music is mp3. Whats are good codec for good quality/ good file size? I've used FLAC but on my iPod earphones theres not much difference, If I were to buy new earphones what ones get a good reccomendation?
This question should really be in a different thread.
-
So in other words, yes you're using it in exactly the sense Llorean suggested :)
The implication was that you needed to coerce the processor into decoding WMA when, in fact, its specs show that it can handle it natively.
-
Any news on the WMA decoder development?
Where are we up to, Marsdaddy? It seems that you made some good progress and it would be a shame if your hard work never made it into Rockbox.
Even if you don't have time at the moment, several other people have offered to help and loads of people eager to use it :)
-
Marsdaddy posted his work on the patch tracker here: http://www.rockbox.org/tracker/task/4984 (http://www.rockbox.org/tracker/task/4984).
Although there appears to have been no new comments there for a couple of months, apparently work has continued behind the scenes (though i'm not sure by who). Hopefully it will be included in rockbox CVS shortly after the feature freeze has been lifted.
-
I sent him an email a few weeks back.
He's still working on it apparently, and has only a few bugs to iron out before submitting. :)
-
Well hello there!
Yes I'm not dead and as I told Mr. Brownstone I only had "a few bugs" to fix - unfortunately, the fix for the last remaining bugs has meant changing from using 32 to 64 bit values... not a trivial change but well worth it in the end.
So, the news is progress is continuing to be made - at this point the code isn't really ready for others to help with. When I get it functionally working and it needs optimisation, I will re-submit it. ;)
-
Awesomesauce. Glad to see you around again, Marsdaddy. ;D
-
Indeed - the update is most welcome :D !
-
Now that the feature-freeze is lifted, here's hoping something gets commited soon. ;D
-
anyone heard from marsdaddy? I saw in his plugin post that his house burnt down. :(
Just wondering if he's ok, back on his feet, etc.