DX90. 2X Sabre,1st page: Downloads, info&inst. . ! Lurker0 FW Mod link 1st page !!. .NEW FW! 2.3.0 . . . . .

[Lurker0]

This is the last clue I'll give you guys.  
http://forum.xda-developers.com/xperia-u/themes-apps/mod-xperia-fidelity-7-0-audio-t1677176
http://forum.xda-developers.com/xperia-z/development/soundmod-purexaudio-v22-final-t2190558
 
Good luck.

I've read the script from the first link. It has (almost?) zero sense for DX90, because DX90 has a different CPU, and does not utilize Android sound system at all. It even does not have mediaserver in my mods and in 2.2.0 official. It does not use any resampler. It does not have "core audio apps/services" to optimize. It does not need any tunings for process scheduling because the player (Mango in stock, or Rockbox) is, in fact, the only running process. And even more: both are started as services, not as user space processes.
 
You can think about DX90 firmware 2.2.0 as an embedded Linux kernel running the only one process. It is not Android in any usual sense.
 
So... I just don't understand what have you optimized really, apart from removing adbd... I was too late to download your firmware and look into, but, based on your description and links, I really have no idea...
 
The second link is quite different: the files it offer to download are linked to a site that Firefox alerts as a fraud. Nevertheless, I've downloaded one, and it was not a ZIP archive, but an EXE file actually, with malware, according to Avast and McAfee. It can be an "installer" by file hosting, but nevertheless...

 

[WindowsX]

I did say I added some Fidelity script optimizations into boot image not all of it. If you don't understand, leave it. The second link was old thread for information about soundmod and I helped him out a bit back then. I don't know how it is now but you can read from changelog and try examine it if you're curious. I mean if download link is still available. For my old link, it's still here so you can download, extract and examine as you please. I made it so that it'd help people sparking new ideas of improving firmware. I hope it won't be deleted again for the sake of paranoid marketing.
 
http://www.mediafire.com/download/ap6hbwbe97bxye9
 
I'm happy enough with people whom I met and let them listen to. I did this for personal use and share it with people whom I can meet face to face with. I don't want to debate with you whether my changes make sense or not. They're my past works for ages ago and I'm done here.
 
Peace.

 

[salavat]

@WindowsX 
 
Surprised to see you response, seems like you are offended.
 
@Lurker0  querying specific aspects of your firmware implementation, and by all means, he is not an amateur on the subject, since Ibasso has included his mods into the official firmware.
 
I hope this discussion won't expand any further if there is nothing specific to add to the subject.
 
Peace

 

[V-l-a-d-i-m-i-r]

Yeah, folks... Let's better take a look at my next DX90 measurements, now at 96KHz/24bit:
 

So the digital filter setting works at 96KHz, too. DX90 frequency response (with sharp rolloff) is flat up to almost 50 KHz!
 

 
The second graph is the noise floor measurement. IMP-RESS-SIVE!!! It appears at 96KHz/24bit and with firmware 2.2.0L0 the actual result is even exceeding the specs! My DX90 has the double battery, and Lurker's latest firmware, no other mods. The measurements are made, just as before, at headphone out, high gain, volume 244.

 

[WindowsX]

  @WindowsX 
 
Surprised to see you response, seems like you are offended.
 
@Lurker0  querying specific aspects of your firmware implementation, and by all means, he is not an amateur on the subject, since Ibasso has included his mods into the official firmware.
 
I hope this discussion won't expand any further if there is nothing specific to add to the subject.
 
Peace

 
I was a bit offended in his statement about making (almost?) zero sense and made inadequate judgements. But I don't want to start argument so I'll leave it at that. It's just my wasted effort so please just forget what I've said before.
 
Peace.

 

[shane55]

  Yeah, folks... Let's better take a look at my next DX90 measurements, now at 96KHz/24bit:
 
 
So the digital filter setting works at 96KHz, too. DX90 frequency response (with sharp rolloff) is flat up to almost 50 KHz!
 
The second graph is the noise floor measurement. IMP-RESS-SIVE!!! It appears at 96KHz/24bit and with firmware 2.2.0L0 the actual result is even exceeding the specs! My DX90 has the double battery, and Lurker's latest firmware, no other mods. The measurements are made, just as before, at headphone out, high gain, volume 244.

 
NICE!!! Thanks for these.

 

[Lurker0]

  http://www.mediafire.com/download/ap6hbwbe97bxye9

OK, now I see the changes you've made, and see that you didn't even check if they are appropriate for DX90 firmware. Most of them I can call only useless. Sorry if it offends you, but it's just true!
 

Spoiler: Technical details are here!

For instance, in DX90 "/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq" is empty, so that lines like (7 in total)
 
    write /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/interactive/above_hispeed_delay 40000
  produce "not found" error message.
 
Same with "/sys/class/rtc/*": 4 lines that use it just produce error messages.
 
Most of "changes" to "/proc/sys/vm/*" parameters change nothing, because your values are exactly the same as iBasso uses. Most of them are not used, because they are related to swapping, and because DX90 has plenty of RAM.
 
Any changes to /sys/module/lowmemorykiller/, and also related to scheduling and task priorities that you made have no effect, because it is actually one task environment with plenty of RAM.
 
Should I continue? I'm sure I'd better stop wasting time.

You see, if you didn't even bother to check whether the parameters you set actually present in the target system, it means, your work is just copy and paste, without investigation. I'd recommend to avoid results of such a work for end users, because there is no a guarantee that you don't damage something this way.
 
If you want to continue your work, I strongly suggest you to start from enabling adbd back again, and check each and every change you make in the console at first. Oh, just in case: you've removed adbd not a graceful way, because you didn't eliminate attempts to start it!

 

[WindowsX]

Did you read comments saying in case init.d doesn't work? I copied some of them in there since the code is used as init.d script. And that's my own tweaks for multiple devices not only DX90.

You also ignored my service tweaks and other working stuff as well. I'm done here. No need to continue pointless arguments.

Bye

 

[Lurker0]

Did you read comments saying in case init.d doesn't work? I copied some of them in there since the code is used as init.d script. And that's my own tweaks for multiple devices not only DX90.

It does not make the lines which are inappropriate for DX90 to work on DX90, or even to have any sense for DX90

Your inability to filter out such a senseless content alerts me the most!
 
Quote:

You also ignored my service tweaks and other working stuff as well.

 
To not to waste reader's time. E.g. removing a service that never starts (because it is disabled) just saves the time required for init to read a few lines, but you have added much more lines that do nothing. That's the core point regarding your optimization of services. For priorities - I've said already, in general.
 
Quote:

I'm done here. No need to continue pointless arguments.

You behave just like DOC2008, who doesn't understand what he is doing (he does not know how to use adb as well BTW!), and insists on listening instead of thinking.

He is also very angry when he is asked about the meanings of the changes he made.

 

[WindowsX]

Again.....you ignored my service tweaks. Your inability to read my tweaks is amusing btw. Nice fallacy bring 3rd person into argument. Looks like you want some.

 

[borrego]

 

Spoiler: Technical details are here!

For instance, in DX90 "/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq" is empty, so that lines like (7 in total)
 
    write /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpufreq/interactive/above_hispeed_delay 40000
  produce "not found" error message.
 
Same with "/sys/class/rtc/*": 4 lines that use it just produce error messages.
 

 
Wow, I recall the 1st thing I learned from my first programming class is how to use # to comment out a code line.  I cannot imagine any programmer who has attended  30mins of programming class not knowing how to do it. Well...

 

[Lurker0]

Again.....you ignored my service tweaks.

Please give me an example of your service tweak you speak about, with an explanation why it is good! I've failed to find one which is not useless!

 

[proedros]

guys take it to pms - WE RE NOT INTERESTED

you are filling the thread with posts that interest only the 2 of you.
 
pm each other , do we need a mod here erasing posts ?
 
please.

 

[T.R.A.N.C.E.]

^ Speak for yourself, I'm finding it entertaining 

 

[Floating Red]

  ^ Speak for yourself, I'm finding it entertaining 

 
Me too !
 
Lurker0 is perhaps a little virulent in his choice of words while keeping a certain note of humor. By cons, WindowsX is a bit too defensive, perhaps nervously fragile but nevertheless seems in good faith. Huhu ... Either WindowsX takes it upon himself and becomes more accurate in his argument and proves that he is not tatally wrong. Either Lurker0 is softened and encourages WindowsX rather than belittle to him every line.... The one in the other, even unequal combat is interesting... Fight! or better, make peace like a Hollywood happy ending !!! And if this strange marriage brings us an even better firmware... I say "banco" !