Rockbox Technical Forums

Rockbox General => Rockbox General Discussion => Topic started by: AC92629 on June 16, 2008, 12:48:18 PM

Title: Fear Installing RockBox
Post by: AC92629 on June 16, 2008, 12:48:18 PM
I just heard about your product today so please excuse my noob questions and/or if this post is in the incorrect forum. I have 2 short, straightforward questions:

1. Is the installation of Rockbox easily and fully reversible? I'm concerned about it harming my iPod nano 2nd generation since the software/firmware changes seem so deeply rooted in the operating system.

2. I've heard OGG formatted audio and it seems to me to be superior to MP3, when using the same bitrate. Is there any advantage to converting my music library from MP3 to OGG or will the fact that they are both lossy formats negate the advantage or even degrade the quality? For what it's worth, many of my songs are at significantly higher bitrates than 128Kbps.

Thank you very much for your help!

Title: Re: Fear Installing RockBox
Post by: mschneider on June 16, 2008, 12:51:59 PM
The 2G nano is not supported.
Title: Re: Fear Installing RockBox
Post by: AC92629 on June 16, 2008, 01:04:09 PM
My iPod is the 8Gb Nano. Thank for the feedback.
Title: Re: Fear Installing RockBox
Post by: Llorean on June 16, 2008, 01:08:41 PM
2G means "2nd Generation" around here, while 2GB means 2 gigabytes.
Title: Re: Fear Installing RockBox
Post by: AC92629 on June 16, 2008, 01:13:52 PM
I believe I said 2nd Generation in my original post. I never said anything about 2G until it was mentioned in the first reply.
Title: Re: Fear Installing RockBox
Post by: Llorean on June 16, 2008, 01:15:49 PM
No, I mean HE meant "2nd Generation." As in, "He said your iPod is not one of the supported models." I never said that you said "2G"
Title: Re: Fear Installing RockBox
Post by: AC92629 on June 16, 2008, 01:24:47 PM
My apologies. I thought 2G meant gigabytes. I'm sorry causing any waste of time. Any chance Rockbox might support 2nd generation in the future? If not, does anyone know of any other similar products that do? Thank you again for your responses.
Title: Re: Fear Installing RockBox
Post by: mschneider on June 16, 2008, 01:34:06 PM
Check out the thread in "New Ports" to see how development is going. I don't think anyone has ported to it yet because the firmware is encrypted.
Title: Re: Fear Installing RockBox
Post by: AC92629 on June 16, 2008, 01:47:28 PM
I will check out the New Port section and keep looking for an alternative. Thank you so much for your feedback. If anyone else has other ideas, I would greatly appreciate them. Unfortunately I own 4 of the same type nanos, otherwise I would opt to purchase next generation and install Rockbox.
Title: Re: Fear Installing RockBox
Post by: pondlife on June 16, 2008, 01:54:35 PM
To run Rockbox on a Nano, you'd need a 1st generation.

To your second question, converting from MP3 to OGG will degrade the sound further - you'd need to go back to the an original/lossless source to make the OGG conversion worthwhile IMHO.

pondlife
Title: Re: Fear Installing RockBox
Post by: wintermute23 on June 16, 2008, 03:11:40 PM
In regards to your other question, assuming you get hold of a player for which a port of RockBox exists, I believe there is no more risk installing RockBox than there is upgrading to the latest version of the original manufacturer's firmware. If you decide you don't like it, or suspect it's causing problems, you can delete RockBox completely and it'll be as if it was never installed.
Title: Re: Fear Installing RockBox
Post by: GodEater on June 16, 2008, 03:31:34 PM
Assuming Rockbox ever gets ported to the 2nd Generation Nano - I don't think we can say currently how safe / unsafe the install is likely to be. We've no clue how we're going to do it, and therefore no way to know how likely that is to render the Nano non-working if it goes wrong.

This is of course though, all speculation ;)
Title: Re: Fear Installing RockBox
Post by: bluebrother on June 16, 2008, 03:38:29 PM
my usual remarks ...
1. Rockbox is not a product, it's a project.
2. please stop altering the text color. There is no reason for doing it and it can make your posts harder to read ... blue on blue is a bad idea anyway at all.
Title: Re: Fear Installing RockBox
Post by: AC92629 on June 16, 2008, 05:16:20 PM
I thank everyone for the feedback. I read through the iPod nano listing under New Ports. It's amazing to see how much work has been put forth toward this project and everyone who contributed should be commended. I never realized how intricate and complicated the process was; it has been a learning experience for me. From the final two entries it would seem as though there might be some hope. Let's keep our fingers crossed. I believe that from the sheer number of nanos sold a lot of people are probably anxious to see this happen.

Point taken about the font color. I didn't mean to tick anybody off by referring to Rockbox by the wrong nomenclature.
Title: Re: Fear Installing RockBox
Post by: bluebrother on June 16, 2008, 05:34:09 PM
I didn't mean to tick anybody off by referring to Rockbox by the wrong nomenclature.
No biggie -- it's mostly just me being picky about it due to the fact that I usually refer to a product if I paid for it and am entitled to receive (paid) support. But as this doesn't apply to Rockbox I somewhat insist on not considering it a product (and honestly, for a product there would be a release required -- and some formalized testing before releasing it ;) )
Title: Re: Fear Installing RockBox
Post by: AC92629 on June 17, 2008, 11:56:37 AM
I can understand that. You guys have done great work here; I look forward to being able to try out Rockbox for myself one day. I have this string setup to notify me of responses via email so if anybody adds a post, I'll know. Thanks again for all your efforts; I for one, sure appreciate them!
Title: Re: Fear Installing RockBox
Post by: ThaCrip on June 20, 2008, 06:56:10 AM
OP said, "2. I've heard OGG formatted audio and it seems to me to be superior to MP3, when using the same bitrate. Is there any advantage to converting my music library from MP3 to OGG or will the fact that they are both lossy formats negate the advantage or even degrade the quality? For what it's worth, many of my songs are at significantly higher bitrates than 128Kbps."

in my opinion Rockbox is worth using alone for .OGG support! (which is one of the primary reasons im using rockbox! :) )

but anyways about your question... as pondlife said, "converting from MP3 to OGG will degrade the sound further - you'd need to go back to the an original/lossless source to make the OGG conversion worthwhile IMHO." ... he's pretty much right... BUT, i still think it's worth converting even 128kbps mp3's to 45kbps .ogg format just for the massive space savings alone ;)

http://www.rarewares.org/ogg-oggdropxpd.php (download your copy there) , here is the one i used myself... http://audio.ciara.us/rarewares/oggdropXPdV1.9.0-1.2.0-P4.zip (requires a P4 or Athlon 64 CPU i believe) and once u start up the program right click the main program window and select 'encoding options' and under the 'use standard quality mode' slide the slider all the way to the left (i.e. to -1) then select 'accept' and then from there on you can drag and drop your files into it.... but i noticed i had to convert my MP3's to .WAV files first (i used the free app called 'Media Coder Audio Edition' to convert .mp3 to .wav) and then drag and drop them (the converted .WAV files) onto the ogg encoder app and it will then convert to 45kbps (average bit rate) .ogg files.... after conversion listen to them on your speakers and compare i think you will find that a high percentage of the time most music sounds quite good considering it's only 45kbps.

but regardless if you agree with me on how good or bad the sound is, one thing is for sure, .OGG is MUCH better than .MP3 at low bit rates (say under 128kbps (i.e. 96,64,45kbps etc)) in sound quality as you can noticeably tell the difference as it sound's overall more 'clear' vs mp3 at low bit rates like 64kbps etc, where as mp3 is more 'muffled' at the lower bit rates.... bottom line is i think you will actually be impressed with how good .ogg sounds at 45kbps ;)

also since im using 45kbps .OGG exclusively on my Sansa e250 2GB player.... even though i only have 2GB, in a way i have 4GB+ (im basing this on 128kbps MP3 vs 45kbps OGG)

and to sum it up on a 2GB player your looking at about 32hours @ 128kbps MP3 vs  64+hours @45kbps OGG.
Title: Re: Fear Installing RockBox
Post by: AlexP on June 20, 2008, 06:59:33 AM
Each to their own, but converting lossy (whichever) at 128 kbps to lossy (whichever) at 45 kbps - urgh.  I'd rather do any number of unpleasant things than listen to music that sounded so terrible.
Title: Re: Fear Installing RockBox
Post by: ThaCrip on June 20, 2008, 07:24:52 AM
@ BigBambi ... i guess it mainly depends on how picky you are cause i honestly feel that anyone who says .OGG @ 45kbps (especially when converted from a original CD source) is 'horrible sounding' is either A) extremely picky with sound quality or B) has a top notch set of headphones or maybe C) has exceptional hearing (which i would assume most people dont) (i never tested my hearing but im 'guessing' it's easily within the normal range of hearing ;) and i consider myself fairly picky with sound but nothing extreme like some of those audiophiles are ;) )

cause i myself can notice a difference between the original source and a 45kbps .ogg file when made from original source (tested on my PC with Winamp Lite when played back with the preset of 'treble and bass' on Klipsch Pro-Media 4.1 speakers, which are better than average pc speakers overall) but it's nothing drastic overall, especially just listening to it on a basic portable player like Sansa e250 with some decent headphones since i think it's easier to hear the flaws on my PC speakers vs playing on the Sansa e250 with a basic set of headphones.

cause even if 45kbps is a little low.... you could even switch it to a 64kbps average bit rate to help clean up the sound a little.

cause as far as MP3 i would not even consider going less than 128kbps on my portable player.

i guess the point i was trying to make is you keep a fairly high percentage of the sound quality at a super small file size... so for those people who have a fairly large collection of music and aint got space to burn (i.e.  dont have 4-8GB+ of space) .OGG at 45kbps is a solid choice especially if riped from the original audio cd.

basically to sum it up... overall i dont consider .ogg worth the trouble to use unless your using it at bit rates lower than 128kbps cause it dont really shine over MP3 well until u get into the low bit rates

but you gotta agree with me though about the lower bit rates (say 96kbps or lower) about what i was saying about the mp3 vs ogg comparison, right? ;)
Title: Re: Fear Installing RockBox
Post by: AlexP on June 20, 2008, 07:31:24 AM
@ BigBambi ... i guess it mainly depends on how picky you are cause i honestly feel that anyone who says .OGG @ 45kbps (especially when converted from a original CD source) is 'horrible sounding' is either A) extremely picky with sound quality or B) has a top notch set of headphones or maybe C) has exceptional hearing (which i would assume most people dont) (i never tested my hearing but im 'guessing' it's easily within the normal range of hearing ;) and i consider myself fairly picky with sound but nothing extreme like some of those audiophiles are ;) )

I'm not an audiophile, I have reasonable but not very expensive earphones, and my hearing is nothing special.

I'm only picky in the sense I want to listen to music without artifacts and distortion.  OGG at 45 kbps *is* horrible sounding (note I never actually said that, but it is true anyway) IMO (especially when transcoded from another lossy source), and whether it sounds better or worse than MP3 at those bitrates is largely irrelevant - for anything other than speech, both are pretty crap, and for speech speex would be the better choice.  I'm glad you can happily listen to it, but no thanks.

Anyway, this is off topic now, so lets stop.  The concerns of the OP seem to me to have been answered, so I'm going to lock the thread.