moODe 6.1.0 upgrade

[TheOldPresbyope]

@Tim Curtis

Hi, Tim.

A very minor nit: When I click the "view" button to see what the upgrade entails, the first line in the response says "6.0.1", not "6.1.0". This apparently comes from the Description section of the update-r600.txt file.

Other than that, installation into a working moOde 6.0.0 player was unremarkable (a word my doctor likes to use).

Thanks for all the work you do to keep moOde in class "A Number 1".

Regards,
Kent

[Tim Curtis]

Oops :-0

Fixed but it will take a few minutes for Amazon CloudFront to process "Invalidate Cache" request.

[Malefoda]

Also found that:

Maybe Firefox dependant.

[grasshopper]

@Malefoda
I don't get the gap in Chromium

[Jedrek]

Upgrade from 6.0.0 to 6.1.0 not restoring sound quality for the for the HIFIBerry Dac+ Pro device that is exist with moodeaudio on 5.x version. :/

[Miss Sissy Princess]

Also found that:

Maybe Firefox dependant.

That's why I've completely given up on moOde.  How can I use it when it has that?  

[Tim Curtis]

lol

Maybe @swizzle can comment. I remember that this was an issue back in the 5 series but I can't recall if it's Browser dependent or not.

[Miss Sissy Princess]

Upgrade from 6.0.0 to 6.1.0 not restoring sound quality for the for the HIFIBerry Dac+ Pro device that is exist with moodeaudio on 5.x version. :/

Have you shown with double-blind tests that you can discern which version you are listening to?

I ask because it's all too easy to convince yourself that there is a difference when none exists.  In fact, studies have shown that someone can play the identical track, on identical equipment, twice, and the odds are good people will believe that they hear significant differences if they are told something is different.  I've done this by telling someone I was playing a FLAC file and then an MP3 file of the same track.  Despite my having played the same MP3 file for both, multiple golden-earred audiophiles told me that the FLAC version sounded much better.  One even went so far as to tell me that I needed to get my hearing checked if I couldn't hear the difference.  

You think you can trust your ears?  Then watch this video and tell me how you did:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-lN8vWm3m0

[Malefoda]

Also found that:

Maybe Firefox dependant.

That's why I've completely given up on moOde.  How can I use it when it has that?  

Hey that was just to improve things, why not point tiny things like that so they don't add up and make things cleaner? I know that's not enough to keep you up all night

[TheOldPresbyope]

Also found that:

Maybe Firefox dependant.

That's why I've completely given up on moOde.  How can I use it when it has that?  

Hey that was just to improve things, why not point tiny things like that so they don't add up and make things cleaner? I know that's not enough to keep you up all night

Not to worry. I thought it was a funny send-up, not of you, but of the type of troll who shows up once in a while to snipe at some aspect of moOde, declare that moOde will not succeed because Tim or the rest of us didn't jump to, and self-importantly announce they're going to deprive us of their presence (they should read the Aesop fable about the gnat and the bull). Unfortunately, humor is a fragile item not easily conveyed over the Internet.

You say Firefox---what version, what O/S, and if a mobile device what orientation? If I use Firefox 68.0.2 on my Linux Mint 18.3 (yeah, I know, 19.2 is out) laptop I can just barely get a sense that the box isn't filled if I blow up the windows to 300%. Same version of Firefox on my Windows 10 laptop at same magnification shows a definite gap but unlike in your picture it's thinner than the line outlining the box. Up-to-date Chrome on both boxes just hints at the gap at 400% mag.

Bottom line, yes, I see the fill isn't quite perfect but I don't see as big a gap as you do.

Regards,
Kent