Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Rockbox for iBasso DX50 dual boot with stock firmware
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rockbox for iBasso DX50 dual boot with stock firmware - Page 99

post #1471 of 1976
Quote:
Originally Posted by saratoga View Post

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

Yes, there is difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by headwhacker View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7S Cameron View Post
 

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!

 

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

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.


Edited by CoiL - 12/30/14 at 11:54pm
post #1472 of 1976
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoiL View Post

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

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.
Edited by headwhacker - 12/31/14 at 1:47am
post #1473 of 1976

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. 

 

:deadhorse:

 

Have a nice day!

post #1474 of 1976
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoiL View Post

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. 

deadhorse.gif

Have a nice day!

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.
Edited by headwhacker - 12/31/14 at 2:08am
post #1475 of 1976
Quote:
Originally Posted by headwhacker View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoiL View Post

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. 

deadhorse.gif

Have a nice day!

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.
You don't have to be a dick about it...
post #1476 of 1976

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.


Edited by mp3 - 12/31/14 at 12:04pm
post #1477 of 1976
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoiL View Post
 

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.

 

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.  

post #1478 of 1976

Unsubscribed. 

post #1479 of 1976
Quote:
Originally Posted by medmitry View Post
 

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.

 

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

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by medmitry View Post
 

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

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by medmitry View Post
 

I'm talking about platform fix. 

 

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").

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by medmitry View Post
 

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

 

 

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

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by medmitry View Post
 

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

 

Again, please share your modifications.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by medmitry View Post
 

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

 

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

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by medmitry View Post
 

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

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

 

Please share your modifications.


Edited by ArgelErx - 1/1/15 at 7:03am
post #1480 of 1976
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7S Cameron View Post

...

 

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.

post #1481 of 1976

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. 

post #1482 of 1976
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.
Edited by cub0ne - 1/1/15 at 11:59am
post #1483 of 1976

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. 

post #1484 of 1976
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..
Edited by cub0ne - 1/1/15 at 1:01pm
post #1485 of 1976
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cub0ne View Post

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..

 

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.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Portable Source Gear
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Portable Source Gear › Rockbox for iBasso DX50 dual boot with stock firmware