Support and General Use > Audio Playback, Database and Playlists
Codec Efficiency Comparison Test (iPod)
soap:
--- Quote from: Rincewind on October 01, 2006, 06:42:15 PM ---
When I "test" performance I usually leave the settings just the way I am normally using rockbox, "No side-effects" is an utopia anyway
--- End quote ---
While I understand that sentiment, give me a chance to explain why at this stage in the game it is counter-productive.
Runtime and efficiency data are most useful when they are collected in a consistent manner with the number of variables reduced and documented to the best of the tester's ability.
Look at the current status of the runtime wiki pages, for example. http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/IpodRuntime and http://www.rockbox.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/IriverRuntime.
These pages, in their current state, (no offense to the generous people who contributed) are next to worthless when it comes to tracking Rockbox's progress in achieving longer runtimes. Without the documentation of settings used there is no way to tell if the runtime is effected by CPU-hungry options or WPSs with lots of cycle-stealing eye-candy. Without performing the same test with the same files on the original firmware there is no way to judge the condition of the tester's battery.
By the same token the Rockbox forums and Wiki are not exactly overflowing with runtime and efficiency data, despite the fact this would be a very easy way for non-developers to contribute. If just 1% of the users unhappy with ipod battery life could be encouraged to...I must be smoking something.
Since there is so little data collected, I feel it is of utmost importance that the tester take that extra step to do the collection in a manner which is most useful to the study of performance as a whole, and not necessarily the most applicable to their personal usage patterns. At the least I beg of them to collect both.
Davide-NYC:
@ Soap: I could not, no matter how hard I tried, have stated it better. :)
We need a new wiki page (CodecPerformance maybe?) which hosts the necessary sample files and a good desription of how people should run the codec performance tests and how and where to report their findings. Using a single 3 minute WAV file encoded in every supported codec and every possible bitrate should do the trick.
The best solution would be to create a WPS that reports the boost ratio directly on screen! I have no idea if this is possible or not but a true TEST.wps (rwps) would rule.
Then we need to expand BatteryRuntime to include a standard sample album and standard settings and WPSes etc and an explicit procedure on how to test and how to report back findings for battery runtime.
Then we need to solicit participation from the users. I bet IriverRuntime and IpodRuntime become full of data very quickly.
People are itching to help. Most just don't know how to get 'jiggy' with the C code. Myself included. ;D
mnhnhyouh:
*sticks hand up to help with testing*
h
Rincewind:
I didn't want to critisize your testing methods. To compare settings it is essential to minimize the influence of other factors.
My post wasn't very serious. Maybe I should have put more emoticons in ;)
--- Quote from: Davide-NYC on October 02, 2006, 12:30:38 AM ---The best solution would be to create a WPS that reports the boost ratio directly on screen! I have no idea if this is possible or not but a true TEST.wps (rwps) would rule
--- End quote ---
Yes, I was thinking of that, too. I don't know if it easy to do, because these values are probably in seperate threads. If I can do it in a few hours I might try it next weekend.
Llorean:
Why would a WPS need to show the boost ratio at all? Why can't you just leave it on the audio thread screen?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version