So, if Clip got gapless, however flawed, why not have the same on Fuze?
I would imagine that Fuze is more capable of playing gapless than the smaller Clip and the softwre should not be too different for it to be such a huge project…
Any ideas?
Does the original Clip have gapless playback too? I thought it was only the newer Clip+.
If that’s the case, the Clip+ has it because it’s a newer device that had recent active firmware development. SanDisk positions itself as a ‘value’ player in the music players market and it seems employing programmers to further develop firmware for older devices is not possible given that ‘value’ position.
(Perhaps they originally had a whole bunch of programmers, but no money to feed them and they are extinct now …)
Thanks, 7o9.
I guess you’re right, it is only Clip+.
Which begs the question: if SanDisk cannot do it on their own, then why not let other folks like Rockbox do it? Didn’t they refuseto release Fuze V2 specs to RB?
It’s just plain annoying, especially since Fuze is still supposedly the top-of-the-line for Sansa. And it is **bleep** good except for the gapless (there are other annoyances, but none as big as the lack of gapless…)
From what I read, it’s not SanDisk refuzing as much as the makers of the chip powering the Fuze (austriamicrosystems).
With the right spec sheets it would probably be much easier and faster to port Rockbox to the Fuze V2 (and Clip+).
Thanks again!
DId not realize that it was not SanDisk.
We should lobby austriamicrosystems then 
(they don’t care, of course)
@pdrub wrote:
Thanks again!
DId not realize that it was not SanDisk.
We should lobby austriamicrosystems then
Thats not really true. AMS has been pretty good. They’ve given us the datasheets for their new chips. The problem is the newer Clip and Fuze use a customized version of an older part (AS3525) thats only available to Sandisk, so they apparently can’t say anything about it. Plus the real problem on the newer chips is figuring out how to talk to the Sandisk flash memory, not run code on the CPU (which is very similar to the old Sansas).
Thanks, saratoga.
So, do I understand correctly that the problem mostly lies with some info not shared by SanDisk?
since sandisk is primarily a flash manufacturer and one of the industry leaders in this market i am sure they want to protect their IP. talking to the flash is part of that IP so i doubt that would ever be released. at least everything i have seen from sandisk in the past leads me to believe they will not release any information regarding how their flash works. sandisk even shares some manufacturing fabs with toshiba and they do not share their IP with toshiba either.
Message Edited by drlucky on 12-02-2009 01:31 PM
@pdrub wrote:
Thanks, saratoga.
So, do I understand correctly that the problem mostly lies with some info not shared by SanDisk?
Well them telling us how to write a flash driver (or better yet writing one for us!) would be great, usually hardware like this is mostly or completely reverse engineered. The problem here is less that we lack some important information then that no one has taken a serious interest in doing it. We have a working driver for the AS3525 based players, so I think most people interested in working on Sandisk ports just buy one of those players.
Probably once theres a firmware update for the Clip+ and a port starts on that, some clip+ owner will take interest, since you can’t just go out and buy a compatible clip+.
Thanks, guys.
So, it looks like it is actually the lack of RB people working on the Fuze V2 that is the issue, not the lack of cooperation from SanDisk or anybody else. Which is a compliment to RB people, in a way (that is “If we wanted to, we would have done it with or without SanDisk’s help”).
OTOH, that’s too bad for the V2 owners 
So back to the original question - are you saying that on the Fuze there is no way to make music play seamlessly?
I have a piece of music which is 78 minutes long in one continuous suite, though for convenience it is carved up into 12 parts.
Is there no way I can play it without the hiccup in between pieces?
You could edit all the pieces back together into one mp3 with mp3directcut.
Agreed. There are a limited number of works that call for, what shall I call it, “true” gapless. The solution is to make a seamless version of the album and save it as “Dark Side Of The Moon- Full Version” and play this long one when you are in the mood for a straight-through play.
The individual tracks can be stored on the player for a more random access.
I would describe the Clip+ gapless as a zero-delay transition, it’s actually pretty nice, and works even if the next track in sequence is a different codec. Remember, the initial discussion centered on using an MP3 track encoded using the LAME encoder for a “true” no-gap transition.
The REAL advantage of the zero-gap as it works currently is best appreciated as a nice rapid transition between tracks, noted when you are searching for a particular passage. There’s a miniscule delay as the Clip+ rockets to the selected track.
Honestly, I cannot sit aloof, drawing on my meerschaum in contemplation, grumbling at SanDisk for some perceived “lack of purity” while pretending I’m critiquing equipment for Stereophile magazine. These wee beasties do most everything so very well, and I must give the developers some credit for what has been accomplished thus far.
It will be very nice, at the least, if the fuze enjoyed the same zero-gap capability as the Clip+ currently does. At the moment, correcting the ReplayGain bug, and other quirks with the new memory integration of the revision 2 devices (firmware build .28) is more important.
Bob :smileyvery-happy:
@pdrub wrote:
Thanks, guys.
So, it looks like it is actually the lack of RB people working on the Fuze V2 that is the issue, not the lack of cooperation from SanDisk or anybody else. Which is a compliment to RB people, in a way (that is “If we wanted to, we would have done it with or without SanDisk’s help”).
OTOH, that’s too bad for the V2 owners
Its actually more like a lack of V2 owners interested in porting rockbox.
@saratoga wrote:
Its actually more like a lack of V2 owners interested in porting rockbox.
Really? Why do you think this is the case?
I’ve seen people trying to get their hands on v1 just in order to be able to use RB, but it’s becoming harder and harder these days. If I did more research myself, I would have tried to get me a v1 too.
@pdrub wrote:
@saratoga wrote:
Its actually more like a lack of V2 owners interested in porting rockbox.
Really? Why do you think this is the case?
I’ve seen people trying to get their hands on v1 just in order to be able to use RB, but it’s becoming harder and harder these days. If I did more research myself, I would have tried to get me a v1 too.
You are misreading Saratoga. “porting” above meaning helping to develop code needed for the V2, not just loading ready-to-run code.
The Clip+ isn’t gapless.
It pretends to be.
It isn’t.
Only the Zune, Cowon S9 and Apple products are true gapless.
Clip+ gapless is BROKEN and does NOT work.
End of discussion.
At the end of the day, the technical finger pointing is irrelevant.
It’s a Sandisk product.
They are responsible.
They either come out and say THEY can’t do it or they continue in stony silence, leading to all kinds of conjecture.
The point is, they designed the product and thus they are responsible for how it performs.
If a chip they chose for the product can’t do what they promised, then they are responsible since it’s their product design.
No buck-passing please - what is IS.
YUCK!
@roj wrote:
The Clip+ isn’t gapless.
It pretends to be.
It isn’t.
Only the Zune, Cowon S9 and Apple products are true gapless.
Clip+ gapless is BROKEN and does NOT work.
End of discussion.
Not so fast…
I have 2 Zunes and they aren’t truly gapless either…More on par with the Clip+ than the Cowon.
Check out any of the Zune boards, and there are endless discussions per subject.
