Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: crashing mp3's
Re: crashing mp3's
From: Chris Hoekstra <chris_hoekstra_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 13:53:08 -0500
Much better troubleshooting info. Now that we know that all the basic
stuff is taken care of, I can verify that this file does also crash my
recorder 6Gb running 2.0.
So is this a rockbox issue, or a non-valid file? The file plays fine
with the original, the file plays fine in wmp.
I took a quick look at the headers for the file. It seems that the file
and headers are incorrect. Using both mp3-Info,winamp, and wmp, the
players show a bitrate of 64kbit while playing, yet the headers state it
is a 384kbit bitrate in all 3 programs. Also, the players show it as
44k frequency while the headers have it as a 48k file. Of course this
screws up the total time of the file.
So obviously this is a bad file, however archos firmware, wmp, winamp,
etc play this file. This could be another error checking bug/feature
that we can flush out.
Just my $0.02, I am sure others will have more insight than I,
lee donaghy wrote:
> --- Chris Hoekstra <chris_hoekstra_at_hotmail.com>
>it crashes on version 2.0
>CBR 64kbps 2 channel (stereo) 44khz audiobook segment
>i don't discount it may be a bad file but thought the
>fact it runs ok on the original archos firmware was
>>I have had this problem before, with a 320kbps file.
>> I made available
>>the file for testing, the guys checked it out, and
>>it turned out there
>>was a bug in the code that they weren't allocating
>>enough buffer size
>>for the 320kbps files. This was back in mid march
>>and it was fixed in a
>>So I guess the first question, since you didn't say,
>>1.) What version of the rockbox firmware are you
>>using? You should be
>>using at LEAST 2.0 and make sure it happens still
>>2.) What device do you have? It helps with the
>>3.) What bitrate, filesize, encoding type (CBR vs
>>VBR/ABR), etc. Maybe
>>it is an unsupported filetype.
>>These things are the basics that one needs to
>>provide just to make sure
>>there isn't something simple, like "don't run 1.4,
>>get the newer version
>>2.0 and try it again".
>>Right now, we can only assume, and you know what
>>that means??? :)
>>Sorry if you are already running the latest and
>>tried everything, don't
>>mean to sound condesending,
>For a better Internet experience
Received on 2003-04-18