Welcome to the Rockbox Technical Forums!
It's closed minded to realize "adding every single idea can make the software worse, not just better, so everything needs to be carefully challenged and weighed"?It seems closed minded to me to dismiss the project as closed minded just because you don't agree with certain choices it has made.
Every idea should be challenged. Period. Socrates once said "The unexamined life is not worth living." Simply accepting an idea, or simply dismissing it, would be closed minded. But to challenge it, seek its weaknesses and strengths, and once fully examined, to make a decision, is quite opposite. But to call it closed minded just because you think the decision is wrong is still foolishness.
Quote from: Chronon on June 02, 2008, 02:56:57 PMI would agree with Llorean that as it currently exists (with only persistent, absolute settings) the EQ is more suited to compensating for variations in hardware performance.I would strongly argue a five-band parametric equalizer with "only persistent, absolute settings" (will disagree with your word choice later) is no better or worse suited to compensating for variations in hardware performance. I would argue, in fact, that (not to be too pedantic on word choice (but words not only express, but shape, thoughts)) that the method of setting the features of a tool is not what determines its functionality ("suited"), but rather what determines its convenience.I have seen no compelling argument yet that the Rockbox EQ is "suited" or "more suited", much less "intended", to solely compensate for inadequacies in hardware. This appears (to me) to be a step-back defense of the previous proposition that the EQ's purpose was to compensate for hardware. Febs did a solid job attacking the "purpose" argument, but now the same argument appears to me to have been resurrected simply by casting either the s/purpose/suitability/ or s/purpose/intention/ spell.EDIT: Rewrote last sentence.EDIT 2: hmm, how to describe? trim of overly pedantic disagreement.
I would agree with Llorean that as it currently exists (with only persistent, absolute settings) the EQ is more suited to compensating for variations in hardware performance.
If I "re-encode" an existing MP3 of maybe 160kb with a program such as Magix Audio Cleaning Lab with better EQ settings for example, is the MP3 file re-compressed and thereby possibly losing quite a bit of quality, or is the "response curve"(?) simply changed within the MP3 so it plays back with the new EQ effects?
Hello All,I am glad to see all of the response to my original post about this subject, though I didn't mean to stir everything up.However, I do agree essentially that EQs and their settings are "supposed" to be used for hardware deficiencies, but that is sort of what caused some, well allot, of my variances in some of my music as far as the way I transferred it to MP3 format.Coming off of Cd's, or digital sources were no problem. But coming from LPs and tape, I tried to "rejuvenate" some of them and through using a set of headphones that didn't really have good enough response for that purpose, some of my recordings are notably weighted in certain areas.The topic was mentioned about redoing them, which would be allot of work, but it could be done. So, in regard to that, this question is somewhat off-topic for this thread but it does have a place:If I "re-encode" an existing MP3 of maybe 160kb with a program such as Magix Audio Cleaning Lab with better EQ settings for example, is the MP3 file re-compressed and thereby possibly losing quite a bit of quality, or is the "response curve"(?) simply changed within the MP3 so it plays back with the new EQ effects?Thanks again for RockBox. After using it on both my old JBR (boy I miss that thing) and now my H10, I don't think I would have kept either without it.Dave
This offers less flexibility (files are harder to move, for one thing, you can't rearrange your collection) than simply putting them beside the original file.There's no reason to add limitations to the system just because iTunes has a silly structure. We can't, or shouldn't, spend forever working around it, and sometimes it's better just to say "they'll have to figure out which files are their songs for this one." If there was a graphical UI for creating these individual EQ addition files, it could put them in the right place anyway.
I would take Chronon's idea one step further, personally, and apply all EQ modifiers in the path.If you had /music/rock/ACDC/Back in Black/song.mp3 and there was a rock.eq in the rock folder, and a Back in Black EQ in the album folder, they should both be "added" to the static EQ, because the Rock one is there for your preferences for the genre, and the album one is there to correct for oddities in mastering the Album. The offsets should be cumulative.
I personally hate the iPod directory structure and how it re-names files. As I understand it, one reason for it is to cut down on seek-times/hard drive usage. That's one reason why I've stuck w/ the iPod file structure.Back to the topic, what isn't flexible about giving users the option to either store the eq/config file in a single folder or in the directory containing the files to apply the settings? Those are the options Rockbox users have for Playlists, albeit from two different menus - Playlist Catalog and Playlist. If the developers were concerned about users restructuring their music directories they wouldn't have made the default location for a dynamic playlist the root, nor the default location for saved playlists the Playlist folder.
I disagree with applying EQ cumulatively. If you take the time to EQ a specific album to your liking, why would you want anything to alter it? If you're listening to an artist where the Rock EQ is applied and then play a track from the Back In Black album, all EQ settings should be completely changed to the Back In Black EQ only, not a cumulative EQ of both.
Page created in 0.161 seconds with 21 queries.