saratoga said:

Is there actually any real difference in sound between them ? Seems unlikely.

Click to expand...

Yes, there is difference.

headwhacker said:

 

7s cameron said:

  I would highly recommend Sound Unlocked Rockbox if you are willing to give it a try! I don't like the stock Rockbox sound a whole lot either, but Sound Unlocked is fantastic!

Click to expand...

 
Must be placebo effect. The perceived change does not affect rockbox at all. See medmitry's comments.

Click to expand...

No it`s not placebo. Have You even tried it or just constantly bashing it?  You seem to totally ignore what medmitry said about SU tweaks and how it affects RB.

coil said:

Yes, there is difference.
No it`s not placebo. Have You even tried it or just constantly bashing it?:rolleyes:  You seem to totally ignore what medmitry said about SU tweaks and how it affects RB.

Click to expand...

I don't need to try it to tell there should not be any difference. The part that he mentioned he changed is not used by rockbox. How did you exactly do your test? What is your proof that it's not placebo? Did you know exactly what piece of the software has changed that affects Rockbox? Bashing is not the same as asking for the exact change that was done.

You have NOT tried it and strictly push on Your "thinking" claiming You are right. It`s like saying: "that headphone has exactly same specs - so there is no difference". I did my test with my ears and music I`m really familiar with. I`m not the only one who hears difference. 
Go and do some research how Lurker, DOC and medmitry are implementing those tweaks and how it affects sound.
 
Won`t comment anymore on this because it seems like banging head against wall. Pointless to argue. 
 

 
Have a nice day!

coil said:

You have NOT tried it and strictly push on Your "thinking" claiming You are right. It`s like saying: "that headphone has exactly same specs - so there is no difference". I did my test with my ears and music I`m really familiar with. I`m not the only one who hears difference. 
Go and do some research how Lurker, DOC and medmitry are implementing those tweaks and how it affects sound.

Won`t comment anymore on this because it seems like banging head against wall. Pointless to argue. 



Have a nice day!

Click to expand...

you are right for once. It's pointless. But good for you if you only need to trust your ears when doing comparisons.

You should also research how rockbox is implemented. Lurker himself said that even some of doc's tweaks are sometimes harmful. Lurker's tweak is sensible and verifiable because he make a full documentation of his changes for everone to see.

headwhacker said:

coil said:

You have NOT tried it and strictly push on Your "thinking" claiming You are right. It`s like saying: "that headphone has exactly same specs - so there is no difference". I did my test with my ears and music I`m really familiar with. I`m not the only one who hears difference. 
Go and do some research how Lurker, DOC and medmitry are implementing those tweaks and how it affects sound.

Won`t comment anymore on this because it seems like banging head against wall. Pointless to argue. 



Have a nice day!

Click to expand...

you are right for once. It's pointless. But good for you if you only need to trust your ears when doing comparisons.

You should also research how rockbox is implemented. Lurker himself said that even some of doc's tweaks are sometimes harmful. Lurker's tweak is sensible and verifiable because he make a full documentation of his changes for everone to see.

Click to expand...

You don't have to be a dick about it...

I restored 1.6 Mango with rkbatchtool, but when I try to load rockbox + cwm 1.6 it comes up with check chip fail, and If I try installing through recovery, it comes up with no update image found.
 
 
 
ETA, got it working.

coil said:

  Yes, there is difference.
No it`s not placebo. Have You even tried it or just constantly bashing it?

 You seem to totally ignore what medmitry said about SU tweaks and how it affects RB.

Click to expand...

 
As far as I can tell, nothing is even changed, so probably you're imagining things.  I'm not ignoring medmitry, from what hes said it doesn't sound like he actually did anything.  
 
That said, if you want to double check, its easy to RMAA something like this.  

Unsubscribed. 

medmitry said:

  Some bug was found, after any manipulation with USB(just plug in/out for example) "HiFi" tweak disappears so you should reboot player to get initial SQ.
I'll fix this issue later.

Click to expand...

 
If this is the case, your changes can not be at the source code level of either Android nor Rockbox.
 

medmitry said:

  This fix applies for proper PCM sound device initialization(using HiFi params).

Click to expand...

 

medmitry said:

  I'm talking about platform fix. 

Click to expand...

 
Please share this "proper PCM sound device initialization" "platform fix" and how it is applied in the case of Rockbox. Please keep in mind, that Rockbox sits at the Kernel level (probaly what you mean with "rockchip rk2928 platform").
 

medmitry said:

  You are wrong here. DAC is another layer. Rockbox uses alsa driver.
 

Click to expand...

 
Yes. Rockbox uses the Android Kernel level ALSA interface. Of the Wolfson DAC.
 

medmitry said:

  No more any mystic. It was an abracadabra not a hi-fi sound, sorry

Click to expand...

 
Again, please share your modifications.
 

medmitry said:

  BTW, I wanna share some information to rb developers I found recently. I think it would be helpful.
 
here is Mango 1.5.0 source code

Click to expand...

 
Thanks. Most of this is allready known. Alas the "rockchip rk2928 platform" implementation (Vold/Android HAL/Kernel level) is not included.
 

medmitry said:

  that's it, no any direct access the DAC/etc, just some implementation for PCM interface of platform driver(using tinyalsa or whatever).

Click to expand...

In this sense there is no direct access, you have to go through the Android Kernel.
 
Please share your modifications.

7s cameron said:

...

Click to expand...

 
Sorry to burst your bubble but your are exhibiting the perfect example of expectation bias (A.K.A. placebo effect).
 
You were told a fix was made to improved sound. That is what you wanted to hear. But ignore the fact the change as pointed out could not affect the sound of Rockbox as any of the part being claimed to have change isn't use by Rockbox. This is easily can be verified as you know rockbox's code is open source and anyone can verify it.

I think it's moot, as medmitry has pulled his version of rockbox, at least from this forum, and edited his posts about it. 
 
I'd like to think charitably about all this - that he was fed a line, and just repeated it. All that stuff about "proper PCM sound device initialization(using HiFi params)" and "platform fix" sounds so much like the kind of jargon used in sales pitches for audio gear that's mostly just the same as other stuff, but you've got to dress up to get anyone to pay attention to it. I think he may have believed all this when he put it together, but started to realize that it was just jargon when getting questioned about it here, hence he started using the "abracadabra" phrase, and then pulled everything.
 
As far as I know, and has been reported elsewhere, all the sound unlocked mod does is add a different EQ curve to the signal, most likely in the midrange, similar to what the stock firmware does, only slightly different. Some people are into that sort of thing; personally I prefer to keep things as flat as possible, as you're adding on so much coloration with whatever you choose to listen to stuff with - pick the coloration you prefer with your listening device, not the player. Just my preference though. 

wth? what just happened here? let rockbox be rockbox and let SU be SU.. how about that? you guys are confusing other users. create your own thread if you want to mix things up. this thread is only for rockbox.

No, it's perfectly on topic here. I'd say go back to page 94 and read from there, but the relevant posts about a version of SU for rockbox have been deleted, so you'll have to do a lot of reading between the lines to see what was there originally. 

yah just did that before posting and your totally right mate. my apologies.. were the same, im not in to this modded version too reason why im using rockbox ever since it has been ported to DX50. its just that modifying the default sound lib of rockbox doesn't seem right..yes its opensource but its ROCKBOX and it has its own sound lib..

cub0ne said:

yah just did that before posting and your totally right mate. my apologies.. were the same, im not in to this modded version too reason why im using rockbox ever since it has been ported to DX50. its just that modifying the default sound lib of rockbox doesn't seem right..yes its opensource but its ROCKBOX and it has its own sound lib..

Click to expand...

 
It's not about "changing Rockbox is not right". On the contrary, it's actually encouraged especially if it has actual benefits. But in return the change must be transparent for everyone else to see and verify. That has been the nature of an open source community.
 
You can't just claim to have changed something and not release your change. (Technically you can but that is going against the spirit of the community and illegal if you are profitting from the claim).
 
A very good example is Lurker's mod in DX90. The change is completely transparent and documented. Rockbox directly benefitted. By removing non-essential processes running in the background and setting the CPU to the maximum supported clock speed, it helps completely remove stuttering in Rockbox.
 
That is the reason I combined his mod with rockbox. Not just for show. 
 
I assume you are fully aware of the very subjective nature of listening and how it's prone to personal bias if test are not done properly. Sadly, that's how things went down here when the change was vaguely described and a couple of users strongly convinced and already made an impression that a difference in sound, exist ignoring the facts even if they were told the change had no effect on Rockbox. Instead of making the effort to understand the reason why questions were asked about the change they just resorted to typical childish comments.
 
That is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. The main DX50 thread is already littered with too much misinformation and subjective bias. That it's very confusing and mostly misleading for a newbie to read.