From: <Matt.OReilly_at_wachovia.com>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 18:26:32 -0400

Oh, ok, I get it. Well, then, it sounds like the random data thing might
be the way to go. Or better yet, simply putting white space in the front
of the .mp3, before the track "actually" begins, equivalent to the
time/space in the old cluster that remains with the first part of the
split.

Generation of silence is easy, just a bunch of 0's with control codes,
right? And the chip already knows how to encode to .mp3... So it would
simply be a matter of hijacking the input and output of the chip to
"record" silence and write it in front of the beginning of the interesting
bit. What's the max size of a cluster? 32k? That's only a fraction of a
second in .mp3 time, so I don't see that it would be greatly disruptive to
the playback of the "new" track.

It occurs to me that any sort of time shifting will encounter this problem.
Only truncating on the end will be easy to do.

Matt



                                                                                                                     
                    Linus Nielsen
                    Feltzing To: rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se
                    <linus_at_haxx.se> cc:
                    Sent by: Subject: Re: Status report
                    owner-rockbox_at_co
                    ol.haxx.se
                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                     
                    05/08/2002 04:13
                    PM
                    Please respond
                    to rockbox
                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                     




Matt.OReilly_at_wachovia.com wrote:
> Is it really that complicated? I may not understand the problem, but
> here's a thought.
>
> I haven't looked into FAT32 at all, but I thought that in FAT16 the end
of

<snip>

less information (that is referred to as "slack").

So if we split a file in the middle of a cluster, the second file would
begin with a partial cluster, and FAT can't handle that (except for the
last one).

/Linus
Received on 2002-05-09