Rockbox mail archiveSubject: Re: More Responsive Track Switching
Re: More Responsive Track Switching
From: blaou <blaou_at_gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:47:09 +1100
Lame with --nogaps doesn't work, since the hardware has to support LAME
tags (where the real tracklength would be stored). apparently, only the
rio karma does...
only the bladeenc supports true compatible gapless support, but the
the only solution is cuesheet support!
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:03:04 +0100
"Ronald Teune" <rtwolf_at_gmx.net> wrote:
> Lame has a --nogaps option IIRC, perhaps that'll help. I'm not annoyed
> by the microsecond gaps, though, so never tried. I also recall that
> the nogaps option caused some trouble... *searches e-mails
> I have seen that Rockbox have problem buffering with some MP3's.
> Specifically, MP3's encoded in VBR with the Lame encoder and the No
> gap option active.
> The play back stops for about a half second every two minutes,
> actually when the hard drive spin down.
> vbrfix was the solution here.
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:20:15 -0500, Ray Lambert
> <listlizard_at_interthingy.net> wrote:
> > 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??
> > :)
> > ~ray
Received on 2005-02-17