Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Rockbox for the Ipod finally working (Read 116108 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Rockbox for the Ipod finally working

Reply #125 –
Yes it does work, but it has problem's, but this is an extremly important step.

Rockbox for the Ipod finally working

Reply #126 –
Quote
Seems like the 5G (Video) Audio driver maybe working now:

Quote
iPod: Audio driver for iPod Video/5G.


NIIIIIIIIIICE

I'm off to buy myself an ipod (as soon as I have cash )

Rockbox for the Ipod finally working

Reply #127 –
The big problem with the 5G was figuring out what spec sheet to follow when implementing the driver.  Now that they know which specification the custom WM DAC used in the 5G follows, it should be fairly straightforward to iron out the bugs.

Rockbox for the Ipod finally working

Reply #128 –
Quote
Speaking as someone who doesn't use playlists of any kind, could you give some insight as to how you use them and why they make listening to and/or navigating your music easier or more enjoyable? Perhaps a detailed example? I understand what playlists are, I don't understand the appeal.
Same question for the concepts of playcounts and last played time info.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=363859"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have one main playlist which has these rules:
Genre is not Comedy
Genre is not Podcast
Genre is not Audiobook

This basically defines what I consider to be "music". Then my main listening playlists include the above, plus something like these:
Last Played is not in last 2 weeks
Rating is greater than X stars

Where X varies depending on my mood. This playlist basically gives me my favorite tunes. Since I have over half my songs rated, it's not a small playlist. The Last Played info keeps the music "fresh", it's stuff that I haven't heard recently.

Every once in a while, I'll play some list where Rating = 0 stars, meaning I have not rated it yet. Then I'll rate the song when I hear one I like. This rating on the iPod gets imported back into iTunes during a sync.

Sometimes, I'll play a specific keyword playlist, like my "Angry" playlist. This is basically "Comment contains Angry", and is just music I've tagged as being my angry music. Loud, fast, lots of screaming, that sort of thing. Or my "Mellow" playlist. Same thing, just consists of slower music. And so forth. I almost never simply pick an album to play. But if I do, I don't need playlists for that, that's built into the iPod already. Just pick the Artist and highlight the Album and hit play. Easy.

Having all this information sync both directions is key to this strategy. A large collection of correct metadata must exist in order for it to work, and it must be kept up to date (preferably on an automatic level). This is not "bells and whistles", this defines how I want to listen to my music. This defines how I've *always* wanted to listen to my music.

I don't want to have to pick and choose every single song/album. I want just tell the thing what *kind* of music I want to hear, and then hear it. iTunes/iPod lets me do just that. I do not feel the need to micromanage my listening choices. I had to micromanage playlists like that 10 years ago when I first started listening to my music through computers. Having to go back to that sort of thing is definitely a step backward.

Quote
but I do not agree with Otto42 regarding the formats and gapless playback etc. quote:
"Just having gapless + odd format support + weirdly crowded display screens that show tons of semi-useless info is not a win, in my book."
gapless and ogg are things I am longing for a long time already. these were the points preventing me from buying my third iPod.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=363902"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You missed the most important word in that quote: "JUST".
Having format support is nice, and having gapless support is nice. I'm not saying to eschew these completely. I'm just saying that these are of lesser importance to the act of actually *playing* music.

In playing music, the first step is telling the system what music it is that you wish to play. If that step is difficult, then it needs work. With Rockbox firmware, that step remains difficult. It's only slightly better than finding a CD and sticking it into a CD player. It is simply not a great improvement.

iTunes' Smart Playlists are a great improvement. But there are probably better ways to do this too. Finding those better ways would be a better area to focus on, IMO. That's where the innovation is. Making the thing play music of various formats is nice and all, but format is almost irrelevant, as I can put my music into any format. Format is arbitrary in that respect.

Yes, this forum is a great place to debate the technical merits of one format vs. another, and it's done often. It's virtually why this forum exists. However, when you really get right down to it, the choice of format is a techie thing. Lots of people don't care about their music's format. As long as it plays and doesn't sound like total garbage, they're happy with it. I'm perfectly satisfied with 160 AAC, for example, and I'm reasonably knowledgable about this sort of thing. Maybe you like OGG. Maybe you like Matroska. Whatever, if the device plays your chosen format, then beyond that, there's really no need for any more format support. The fact that my iPod could play OGG with Rockbox is fairly worthless to me, because I don't use OGG. Yes, OGG might be important to you, but making the thing easier to use and thus play the music you want to play is probably pretty important to everybody.

I'm not saying that they should add smart playlists exactly as iTunes does. What I'm saying is that they should have something more advanced than simply selecting and playing an album or a predefined playlist. The device should be smarter than that. The UI should be easier to use than that. That's what makes a player great. Playing a  thousand formats gaplessly is nice, but of lesser importance, in my book.

And I'm suggesting that I am not alone in that respect. People don't notice formats, but they do notice the user interface. Lack of OGG, lack of gapless? These are not deal breakers for me. I can cope with them. But having to step back in time to how I managed my music 10 years ago? That's a deal breaker, and a big one too.

Rockbox for the Ipod finally working

Reply #129 –
I guess this means the the 'to do' list until its completley implemented comes down to: fix bugs on some lcd targets, make cpu use dynamic clock speed and fix the battery indicator.

Rockbox for the Ipod finally working

Reply #130 –
Maybe the offtopic iTunes and apple firmware arguements could be started in a different thread?

Rockbox for the Ipod finally working

Reply #131 –
Quote
This is not "bells and whistles", this defines how I want to listen to my music. This defines how I've *always* wanted to listen to my music.

I don't want to have to pick and choose every single song/album. I want just tell the thing what *kind* of music I want to hear, and then hear it.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364045"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thank you for the insight Otto.. I can see how the iPod firmware would be very appealing if that's how you like your music. I guess we just listen in opposite ways. I always know exactly what song I want to hear, and navigate to it. When I'm feeling "dangerous" I might shuffle through all songs, but that's pretty rare.

But where's the iPod firmware's GameBoy emulator?  j/k 

Rockbox for the Ipod finally working

Reply #132 –
to Otto42 and others in this 'which is better' argument...

This is all interesting reading. But isn't this all just "rockbox is better for me" versus "iTunes is better for me"? There's no disagreement to be had in that, because the 'me's are different. There's an important distinction between 'better' and 'better for me', and everyone is starting off talking about 'better' and ending up justifying that by talking about 'better for me'.

Can we just drop the personal comparisons? For example I don't listen to music like Otto42 does, I just want something to carry round my albums with. I listen to music in albums - apologies for being so backward. If there's something i haven't listened to in a while I just listen to it, and I like to have the album be played in whatever format I ripped it in and played continuously without gaps. Rockbox is better for me. But who else really cares?!? I'm certainly not saying that my use for music is better than anyone else's. I'm not even sure what that would mean. Perhaps we should have a poll thread or something, if 'which one's best for me' is really what we want to be talking about. That's all this arguing is really boiling down to in the end. Both firmwares have their uses, if you have uses for them, and which is better is a matter of which fits you better.

Rockbox for the Ipod finally working

Reply #133 –
Spandrel, I think the "arguing" started when Otto fired the initial shot by defining what he considers better.  I don't think we all need a lecture.  This line of discussion would certainly fit better elsewhere, as someone else mentioned...

Rockbox for the Ipod finally working

Reply #134 –
Quote
Spandrel, I think the "arguing" started when Otto fired the initial shot by defining what he considers better.  I don't think we all need a lecture.  This line of discussion would certainly fit better elsewhere, as someone else mentioned...
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364103"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Sure, I was more-or-less agreeing with that (splitting off the line of discussion). And the 'lecture' was explicitly address to the participants in that discussion, not to all.

There is room I think for people to thrash out what they like or dislike though, that at least is being informative about what comparative features there are to like or dislike.
Eg someone else mentioned that there was no database feature in rockbox. There is, but it's a bit awkward - you need to generate one while connected via USB using a java or perl script, and then set the browser to 'browse by tags'. So it's not fully implimented yet but might be functional enough for some if you just want to be able to browse by album, artist, etc (correct me if I misunderstood the requirement).

Rockbox for the Ipod finally working

Reply #135 –
Good points, sorry if I came across as a bit aggressive.  I have the tendency to take forum comments personally, which can be a bad trait. 

I wasn't aware of that fix but it, of course, requires that your tags all be properly filled.  Mine are not 100% but I would still be interested in experiencing navigation by way of a database sometime...I just don't follow that type of organization method and keep music in directory trees generally.

Rockbox for the Ipod finally working

Reply #136 –
Quote
Eg someone else mentioned that there was no database feature in rockbox. There is, but it's a bit awkward - you need to generate one while connected via USB using a java or perl script, and then set the browser to 'browse by tags'. So it's not fully implimented yet but might be functional enough for some if you just want to be able to browse by album, artist, etc (correct me if I misunderstood the requirement).

I have just tried it and my ipod froze when I enabled it.
Stupidity is root of all evil.

Rockbox for the Ipod finally working

Reply #137 –
Quote
Quote
but I do not agree with Otto42 regarding the formats and gapless playback etc. quote:
"Just having gapless + odd format support + weirdly crowded display screens that show tons of semi-useless info is not a win, in my book."
gapless and ogg are things I am longing for a long time already. these were the points preventing me from buying my third iPod.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=363902"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You missed the most important word in that quote: "JUST".
Having format support is nice, and having gapless support is nice. I'm not saying to eschew these completely. I'm just saying that these are of lesser importance to the act of actually *playing* music.

In playing music, the first step is telling the system what music it is that you wish to play. If that step is difficult, then it needs work. With Rockbox firmware, that step remains difficult. It's only slightly better than finding a CD and sticking it into a CD player. It is simply not a great improvement.

iTunes' Smart Playlists are a great improvement. But there are probably better ways to do this too. Finding those better ways would be a better area to focus on, IMO. That's where the innovation is. Making the thing play music of various formats is nice and all, but format is almost irrelevant, as I can put my music into any format. Format is arbitrary in that respect.

Yes, this forum is a great place to debate the technical merits of one format vs. another, and it's done often. It's virtually why this forum exists. However, when you really get right down to it, the choice of format is a techie thing. Lots of people don't care about their music's format. As long as it plays and doesn't sound like total garbage, they're happy with it. I'm perfectly satisfied with 160 AAC, for example, and I'm reasonably knowledgable about this sort of thing. Maybe you like OGG. Maybe you like Matroska. Whatever, if the device plays your chosen format, then beyond that, there's really no need for any more format support. The fact that my iPod could play OGG with Rockbox is fairly worthless to me, because I don't use OGG. Yes, OGG might be important to you, but making the thing easier to use and thus play the music you want to play is probably pretty important to everybody.

I'm not saying that they should add smart playlists exactly as iTunes does. What I'm saying is that they should have something more advanced than simply selecting and playing an album or a predefined playlist. The device should be smarter than that. The UI should be easier to use than that. That's what makes a player great. Playing a  thousand formats gaplessly is nice, but of lesser importance, in my book.

And I'm suggesting that I am not alone in that respect. People don't notice formats, but they do notice the user interface. Lack of OGG, lack of gapless? These are not deal breakers for me. I can cope with them. But having to step back in time to how I managed my music 10 years ago? That's a deal breaker, and a big one too.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364045"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



Otto42, you are absolutely right. I do think that the UI is very important and that Rockbox at least should have an Apple equivalent.
but if you'd take a look at other companies' support forums, you saw many requests for gapless playback. (talking about iAudio). Of course they don't request ogg or flac, because iAudio's players do that already.

my point is: Rockbox is worthless to me without a decent UI (e.g. database-browsing a la Apple), but if Rockbox had this UI without being capable of playing back other formats (and doing this better - with gapless-playback and/or RG) it would be worthless either. IMHO.





something else. it is not only about what people like better or something. it it also about improving Rockbox - don't forget that. we are not fighting about taste.

that's why I said - why not implement both things. directory-structure and database.

Rockbox for the Ipod finally working

Reply #138 –
1) Rockbox has been functional on ipods for a little over two weeks, and there is still a LOT of work to be done just to get basic audio playback working reliably.  There are never enough hours that the volunteer Rockbox developers can spend on the project, and the focus has always been to make the actual audio playback as good as possible.

2) As mentioned on the first page of this thread, a developer has spend the last few months developing a new tag database for Rockbox, and from the recent progress reports it seems very close to being committed to CVS.

3) "smart playlists" and integration with PC software can't happen without 2).  But there are developers eagerly waiting to take advantage of the relaunched Rockbox tag database when its ready.

Rockbox is not a commercial company - it's the result of volunteers around the world who enjoy spending their free time contributing to the project.  If there are features you feel are missing from Rockbox, then pick up a C programming book and help make them happen.

Rockbox for the Ipod finally working

Reply #139 –
Is there definitely no possibility of an OS X port ?

Rockbox for the Ipod finally working

Reply #140 –
Quote
Is there definitely no possibility of an OS X port ?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364205"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


This is for DAPs not Windows or anything, not sure if you can get any of the utils that are needed to rip the firmware or anything for other OSes though?

Oh yeah, Dave the work you and the other devs do is much appreciated!!

Rockbox for the Ipod finally working

Reply #141 –
Quote
This is for DAPs not Windows or anything, not sure if you can get any of the utils that are needed to rip the firmware or anything for other OSes though?


OK then, a version that will run on an HFS+ formatted iPod accessed solely by connection to a computer running OS X.

Rockbox for the Ipod finally working

Reply #142 –
Quote
Rockbox is not a commercial company - it's the result of volunteers around the world who enjoy spending their free time contributing to the project.  If there are features you feel are missing from Rockbox, then pick up a C programming book and help make them happen.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364187"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


This is no excuse. Rockbox is a public project, and as such it is fair-ground for criticism.

The "learn to code and your own thing" argument is nonsense.

That said, I agree that Rockbox is still a work in progress and I do look forward to see where it leads to.
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseñas de Rock en Español: www.estadogeneral.com

Rockbox for the Ipod finally working

Reply #143 –
Quote
This is no excuse. Rockbox is a public project, and as such it is fair-ground for criticism.

it depends on if it is "constructive criticism", or "destructive" one.

Quote
The "learn to code and your own thing" argument is nonsense.

why is that? if you don't like something, and the person gives you the right to contribute,  and you think you have better ideas, implement it. That is one of the reasons for open source.

Quote
That said, I agree that Rockbox is still a work in progress and I do look forward to see where it leads to.

there we both agree.

I think rockbox is really cool, i would like it to end up being something with the cool interface of the iPod, withouth the need of the DB system. I just like to drop my files, and play them. Don't like to have the need for iTunes.

THANKS ROCKBOX TEAM!

Rockbox for the Ipod finally working

Reply #144 –
Quote
Quote
Rockbox is not a commercial company - it's the result of volunteers around the world who enjoy spending their free time contributing to the project.  If there are features you feel are missing from Rockbox, then pick up a C programming book and help make them happen.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364187"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is no excuse. Rockbox is a public project, and as such it is fair-ground for criticism.

The "learn to code and your own thing" argument is nonsense.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364262"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That is the ONLY argument you need. And there is nothing more annoying than people that think they can DEMAND something from freeware authors. Sure, it's a public project, and the authors listen to the users, but you still have to remember that they are doing this for free. And the only people that are in the position to make decisions are the authors themselves. And indeed, if you don't like this, you are free and welcome to lend in your hand.

Rockbox for the Ipod finally working

Reply #145 –
Quote
Is there definitely no possibility of an OS X port ?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364205"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes,  there is the possibility of making Rockbox work with HFS+ formatted iPods, but so far no-one has expressed any interest in doing so.

As I'm sure you know, you can reformat your iPod as FAT32 and continue to use it on your Mac.

Rockbox for the Ipod finally working

Reply #146 –
Quote
That is the ONLY argument you need. And there is nothing more annoying than people that think they can DEMAND something from freeware authors. Sure, it's a public project, and the authors listen to the users, but you still have to remember that they are doing this for free. And the only people that are in the position to make decisions are the authors themselves. And indeed, if you don't like this, you are free and welcome to lend in your hand.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364271"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I wasn't demanding, nor defending people who demand -- yes, I do find them annoying also -- nor did I mean any disrespect for freeware or open-source apps (which are not the same, as you know). I was just trying to comment on the way some pieces of software at a given time, are somewhat considered "sacred" and noone is allowed to say anything bad about them.

There are a couple of people in this thread who have posted how and why Rockbox doesn't fit their needs and we have people telling them to go develop their own thing. This is no constructive, nor is it sane. Not everybody in this forum is a developer or is in any way interested in code (or, in my case, has any time to learn it even if I wanted). But we all have opinions, don't we?
I'm the one in the picture, sitting on a giant cabbage in Mexico, circa 1978.
Reseñas de Rock en Español: www.estadogeneral.com

Rockbox for the Ipod finally working

Reply #147 –
Quote
Quote
Is there definitely no possibility of an OS X port ?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364205"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Yes,  there is the possibility of making Rockbox work with HFS+ formatted iPods, but so far no-one has expressed any interest in doing so.

As I'm sure you know, you can reformat your iPod as FAT32 and continue to use it on your Mac.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364273"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I'll give it a bash next time I need to restore the pod...taking everything off makes the whole thing heat up so much that I'm loath to do it unnecessarily. I don't know if I'd need to update Apple firmware via Virtual PC susequently. I don't see the point of lossless on a DAP and I'm happy enough with decent bitrate LAME/AAC but gaplessness for live recordings certainly does appeal to me.

Rockbox for the Ipod finally working

Reply #148 –
The thing about it is that it's hard enough to write all the base line code. Most developer's do not have enough time to deal with everybody's request. This thread is not in the official rockbox forum, so posting here asking for rockbox feature's will most likely fall on deaf ear's. But the fact remain's the same, many of the small stuff is added by people who make there own patch's. Rockbox is a community effort. The rockbox was originally made for greyscale lcd's with pretty slow cpu's. It's now being ported to new DAC's with color lcd's, larger ram and pretty powerful cpu's. So obviously a lot of thing's are changing. A lot of stuff has to be reworked or made from the ground up. This will take time. The first priority is making the DAP working stable, then comes the cosmetic and minor stuff.

Rockbox for the Ipod finally working

Reply #149 –
Quote
Quote
That is the ONLY argument you need. And there is nothing more annoying than people that think they can DEMAND something from freeware authors. Sure, it's a public project, and the authors listen to the users, but you still have to remember that they are doing this for free. And the only people that are in the position to make decisions are the authors themselves. And indeed, if you don't like this, you are free and welcome to lend in your hand.
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364271"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]



There are a couple of people in this thread who have posted how and why Rockbox doesn't fit their needs and we have people telling them to go develop their own thing. This is no constructive, nor is it sane. Not everybody in this forum is a developer or is in any way interested in code (or, in my case, has any time to learn it even if I wanted). But we all have opinions, don't we?
[a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=364274"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Actually its perfectly constructive and sane.  This is a thread about rockbox being ported to the ipod.  If it were a thread about complaining about Rockbox not being enough like the stock firmware, you would have a point.  But its not.  So if you want to bitch, perhaps you or someone else could start that thread.