Rockbox Development > Feature Ideas

[Feature Suggestion] Recording to WMA or some other format.

(1/5) > >>

dangerousd777:
MP3 sounds good at 128, WMA is fine at about 64-96, 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, I'd just like more time to record in case I only had like 300 MB left if I jammed a lot of music on my Sansa e260.

Besides that the options for recording are absolutely EXCEPTIONAL... and so is everything else. (I especially like the bitrate options and the volume gain) and Keep it up  ;D

Llorean:

--- Quote from: dangerousd777 on January 25, 2009, 08:09:48 PM ---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

--- End quote ---

I think evidence suggests at least that it's quite clear WMA takes more CPU to decode than MP3 does. Rather than saying "the reasons are pretty simple" you might want to show something that explains why the direct, measurable, quantifiable evidence is wrong.

Also, you suggest "or some other format" but don't actually seem to have suggested any other formats, just WMA which is measurably inferior in one of the areas you seek to improve and impossible to compare in the other at this time (unless you happen to have on-hand a fixed-point WMA encoder you're already testing on Rockbox).

dangerousd777:
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, and the compression is EVEN BETTER. AoTuv Lancer Ogg Vorbis is much much faster on SSE 2 CPUs (Ogg Vorbis and WMA I get about 13x real-time encoding speed on my P4 w/ HT 3.2 Oc'd to 4 Ghz, and with AoTuv Lancer I get 53x real time).

The CPUs for Mp3 and Mp4 players don't have SSE or SSE2 however.

Regular WMA sounds good down only to 96, Ogg Vorbis sounds good even down to about 32-48 average, therefore that would probably beat WMA 96 encoding according to that chart and the trend. It'd only be a decrease of about 5-7 mhz.

Does this sound reasonable? Or is it another longshot???

Does RockBox automatically clock the CPU when recording and encoding?
How much does Mp3 take to encode?

Could Ogg Vorbis be the next one? And considering it's free and non-proprietary and the source is freely available, that's also a plus.

safetydan:
I don't believe there's a fixed-point encoder for Ogg Vorbis available. That pretty much kills any chance of getting Ogg Vorbis as a recording format.

Also, be careful looking at encoding speeds on PC. The CPUs used on Rockbox targets are very different and sometimes much simplified from a typical PC CPUs. This can lead to different relative performance than you might expect.

saratoga:

--- Quote from: dangerousd777 on February 02, 2009, 10:08:06 PM ---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.

--- End quote ---

Its not that difficult compared to actually writing them.


--- Quote from: dangerousd777 on February 02, 2009, 10:08:06 PM ---Even Vorbis is less CPU intensive than WMA according to that chart,

--- End quote ---

Which chart?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page