Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: More Responsive Track Switching
Re: More Responsive Track Switching
From: Ray Lambert <listlizard_at_interthingy.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:20:15 -0500
> Re: More Responsive Track Switching
> "Noah Smith" <midblue_at_carolina.rr.com>
> Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:39:04 -0500
>>> Noah Smith wrote:
>>>>> What could be done, is to make a part of the buffer permanently
>>>>> reserved for the next track on the playlist. When the playing song's
>>>>> buffer first fills, so does the next track's smaller pre-buffer.
>>> I don't like this idea. It grabs a piece of our buffer and only holds the
>>> next track in buffer, and what is with the next but one track? It does'nt
>>> speed up the song search much.
>>> A main construction principle of rockbox was (if I remember right) a
>>> maximum mp3 buffer.
>I realize that not everyone would find such a feature useful, but it seems
>that near-instantaneous song skipping would be nice, if not for every
>device, then for at least the ones that can afford it (8meg Recorders, etc.)
>I also understand Rockbox is geared towards best playing and buffer time,
>but I'm not suggesting that this be enabled for all devices, just an option
>for those willing to give up some space or those who have more than enough
>If you think about it, for people who often skip tracks before they are
>finished, the scheme would be buffering more of what they actually hear, as
>opposed to what they miss because of changing to another track.
I think the more important use for this is when listening to live music
recordings or other material where there isn't supposed to be any gap
between tracks. I listen to live recordings a lot and the gap is often
times jarring to some degree. I've thought numerous times about trying
to implement seamless track switching myself. The obvious way to fix it
is to begin loading the next song before the current one ends,
preferably before the disc spins down, probably reading it immediately
after reading the final chunk of the currently playing file. I haven't
looked at the code yet myself though so I'm not sure what the best way
to implement this would be; but I have no doubt that it CAN be done.
I'm not sure I understand why this would be valuable when track skipping
though. I would think that you would WANT a gap then, to create an
aural boundary between the two tracks (I know I do). Then again, maybe
I've just misunderstood the whole discussion?? :)
Received on 2005-02-16