Support and General Use > Audio Playback, Database and Playlists
WMA again
Bagder:
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!
Marsdaddy:
--- Quote from: Daniel Stenberg on March 21, 2006, 08:14:29 AM ---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.
--- End quote ---
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.
saratoga:
--- Quote from: MU4L on March 18, 2006, 02:31:34 PM ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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?).
safetydan:
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.
MU4L:
--- Quote from: saratoga on March 21, 2006, 01:27:06 PM ---
--- Quote from: MU4L on March 18, 2006, 02:31:34 PM ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
I'm talking about portable audio players, though. Perhaps I should have made that clear in the initial post.
--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---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.
--- End quote ---
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?).
--- End quote ---
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
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version