Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › What is good about rockbox?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What is good about rockbox?

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 

I see so many people praising it but personally I thought it was horrible.

 

EQ / crossfeed / ReplayGain = useless, I'll listen to the sound as it was recorded and intended to be, thanks

 

gapless playback = something that all worthwhile players should already have

 

interface = too much useless information, hard to read

 

battery life = reduced

 

MPEG / multilingual / games / apps / etc = all useless for a music player

 

Open source = a catchy phrase these days, but often a disadvantage rather than an advantage

 

 

It might look cool (?? I don't think so) but is practically bad.

post #2 of 32

EQ and replaygain are not useless, and it's your loss for not using them.

The main purpose of rockbox is support for extra formats and especially replaygain. If you don't need those features, then don't use it?

post #3 of 32

I liked Rockbox because it allowed me to play .flac on my 4th gen iPod.  But the battery life was horrible (which I expected but it was worse than I thought it would be).  The software is neat, but if you aren't going to do tweaks then it's probably not for you.

post #4 of 32

EQ and replaygain useless? Amusing. You do realize that it's impossible to know what the recording was supposed to sound like without using the same equipment (speakers) that the sound engineers originally used, and using them in a room of the same dimensions? And lets not forget that headphones all apply their own sound signature to a recording.

 

If you don't want to use EQ or replay gain, that's your prerogative. But to call them useless is little more than a demonstration of ignorance. It's just another example of why the professional market and "audiophile" market are so vastly different. By the way, I'll give you three guesses as to which products cost more.

post #5 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunwolf View Post

gapless playback = something that all worthwhile players should already have


They should, but don't. That's why there's Rockbox.

post #6 of 32

Serious question: what is good about gapless playback?

post #7 of 32

Gapless playback is necessary for audio mixes (particularly DJ sets and some albums that have seamless transitions like a Pink Floyd) so you won't hear any audible gaps in between tracks.

 

Rockbox is great because you can throw any audio format on your RB-enabled player and know that you can play it!

 

Throw in extras like Gameboy emulation and you've got a winner.

post #8 of 32

I absolutely agree. Some albums are very difficult to listen to unless there is gapless. One such album is Pink Floyd Dark Side Of The Moon. There is no way I can listen to that if there are gaps in between. Of course I've solved the problem by just making the album into one file anyway since sometimes I put my dap on random and I get one of those 30 second blurbs from that album and one file prevents that.

post #9 of 32

Oh okay that makes sense.  I gotta listen to Dark Side of the Moon with gapless now lol

post #10 of 32
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by JxK View Post

EQ and replaygain useless? Amusing. You do realize that it's impossible to know what the recording was supposed to sound like without using the same equipment (speakers) that the sound engineers originally used, and using them in a room of the same dimensions? And lets not forget that headphones all apply their own sound signature to a recording.

 

If you don't want to use EQ or replay gain, that's your prerogative. But to call them useless is little more than a demonstration of ignorance. It's just another example of why the professional market and "audiophile" market are so vastly different. By the way, I'll give you three guesses as to which products cost more.

Replay Gain is basically useless. If the tracks were mastered such that some have levels lower than the rest, that was done for a reason and that's how I intend to listen to them. If the whole album is that way, so be it (but generally all albums are in a very similar range anyways). If you think the volume is too low it takes only a few seconds to adjust it manually so it's not worthwhile in any respect.

 

EQ is distorting the sound from the original intent. If the sound engineers wanted it that way they would have EQ'd it themselves during production don't you think? Yes there is a slight difference in playback, but the closest you will get to the original intended sound is not distorting it. Sound engineers are not all dumb. In the experimental realms music is often even recorded with special methods or foresight.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by lasraik View Post

Serious question: what is good about gapless playback?

Normal EAC ripping is to append gaps to previous tracks. They are meant to be played back gaplessly, whether there were silent gaps in the original audio or, most importantly, if it was segued/mixed.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by djray View Post
Rockbox is great because you can throw any audio format on your RB-enabled player and know that you can play it!

 

Throw in extras like Gameboy emulation and you've got a winner.

You don't need the majority of formats. There are practically no audio releases in odd outdated formats nowadays, which is precisely why they aren't supported. They can easily be converted to a common format if needed. OK some players don't have FLAC support, but I think it's a minor issue.

1. You practically can't tell the difference between MP3 and FLAC, especially with your portable rig. FLAC is just a waste of the tiny amount of memory it has.

2. Many new players are supporting it natively now.

 

Gameboy emulation on a portable music player is ridiculously useless and a waste of battery!


Edited by sunwolf - 8/16/10 at 9:05pm
post #11 of 32


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunwolf View Post

Replay Gain is basically useless. If the tracks were mastered such that some have levels lower than the rest, that was done for a reason and that's how I intend to listen to them. If the whole album is that way, so be it (but generally all albums are in a very similar range anyways). If you think the volume is too low it takes only a few seconds to adjust it manually so it's not worthwhile in any respect.

 

Alot of my instrumental and classical albums have volume differentials around 15db. That's more than just a little. Now, at home I like setting a constant volume and hearing those differences as intended in the recording. But for portable use, turning the volume up and down after every song is annoying, and also turns the screen on thereby wasting battery. Then there is externaI noise, which may require it's own set of volume corrections. It's easier to set the entire album to one flat volume level and go about my business, than constantly fussing with my DAP.

 

EQ is distorting the sound from the original intent. If the sound engineers wanted it that way they would have EQ'd it themselves during production don't you think? Yes there is a slight difference in playback, but the closest you will get to the original intended sound is not distorting it. Sound engineers are not all dumb. In the experimental realms music is often even recorded with special methods or foresight.

 

Again, I reiterate my point that we are unable to know what the original recording sounds like. And that each headphone has its own sound signature, which influences sound - sometimes drastically. Does a recording on a grado sound like a recording on a sennheiser?

 

So EQ lets you adjust the recording to what you think it should sound like. Or it lets you adjust the sound to what you prefer, maybe you like a little more sub-bass? Or it lets you fix certain deficiencies in your headphones, or help them sound more inline with your preferences. (maybe grados with more bass, or sennheisers with less warmth). But regardless, EQ is far from useless.

 

And when we get older and start losing high frequency sensitivity, EQing becomes mandatory in my opinion in order to properly hear the music.

 

Edit: I'll add that at least for me, RB has increased battery life by some 25%.


Edited by JxK - 8/16/10 at 9:17pm
post #12 of 32

Well I think it varies with each person. I would only use it if I got an iPod so I wouldnt' have to 

A) Use the stock firmware

B) Have a custom EQ

C) Not have to use iTunes.

 

Now I've never used Rockbox but these are some of the good things I've heard.

post #13 of 32

 

Quote by sunwolf:
 

EQ is distorting the sound from the original intent. If the sound engineers wanted it that way they would have EQ'd it themselves during production don't you think? Yes there is a slight difference in playback, but the closest you will get to the original intended sound is not distorting it. Sound engineers are not all dumb. In the experimental realms music is often even recorded with special methods or foresight.

 

You make it sound like there are rules that sound engineers must follow to get a mix "right" or correct -- not so.  Usually, the mixer works with the artist(s) to create the tone the artist wants; sometimes the mixer mixes the way he/she likes, coloring it with EQ, reverb, and many other effects.  Bottom line, there is no right/wrong when listening to music.  There is absolutely no way you will ever recreate "the original intent" because no speakers or headphones are going to replay music the same exact way it came out of the speakers in the mixing booth. 

 

Another thought: artists are constantly telling us there is no certain meaning to their lyrics, just however I the listener wants to interpret them.  And that same artist would tell me I'm doing his/her music an injustice by "distorting" it with some additional bass or less treble?  I don't think so.  Let me encourage you to loosen up, enjoy coloring outside the lines some, and color the music you are listening to however you want to!

 

Anyway, with any EQ (and Rockbox has several different ways to EQ sound) you can do many things.  I like to try to equalize my headphones toward each other some.  I appreciate the inherent differences between 2 headphones or IEMs, but I don't like to hear completely divergent versions of the same song if 2 headphones have very different inherent sound signatures.  So I try to bring them a bit towards a more common sound (not completely, just closer) that I like to hear.

post #14 of 32

In sum, if you find a particular thing that is useful in your life, that's great. If not, like a great number of things that you will never know or use, ignore them and get on with your life. There is no reason to question why other don't live in your house, don't have your job or don't marry your wife/husband.

post #15 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunwolf View Post

Replay Gain is basically useless. If the tracks were mastered such that some have levels lower than the rest, that was done for a reason and that's how I intend to listen to them. If the whole album is that way, so be it (but generally all albums are in a very similar range anyways).


No, there's not a reason. Albums where replaygain sets a value of over -4db generally sound like it came out of someone's pooper because the range was squashed and/or driven into clipping by an incompetent or weak willed engineer who won't say no. If some exec tried to force me to master an album that piss poorly, I'd tell them to F themselves and I'd quit.

 

Replaygain seldom sets +gain values except on classical, but as long as the peaks don't go over 0db it's harmless. Album gain is your friend, instead of leveling the volume it will set the entire album to a set value so quieter tracks will remain quieter.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › What is good about rockbox?