Or print it, and scan it.

I'm thinking of some pure coincidence. Some bit up in the header while the header is interpreted wrongly. I don't know yet.
If 0.9x-4 is doing this better, there's another dimension in play. Me again.

Must be my fault. I never tested AIFF at 88K2.

Josef,

I may have sound harsh, which I don't intend to. So, to be clear on things :

Everything which has to be converted, or copied for that matter, has to be done in advance in order not to disturb SQ. However, since it might be an annoying thing to wait some longer before the first notes sound, the check box "Start Engine3 during conversion" has been brought up. Now, have too many tracks in the Playlist to convert or copy, and SQ degrades for a longer time or doesn't commence for that same time. Nothing else to do if you don't want the influence at each track. This is just how it's designed ...
Btw with the most explicit part of conversions not being done on the fly (like normal players do). It really matters.

Peter

Aha. That may be weird, but of course is the most helpful to know.

About the origine ... I probably got on a strange track because I really never saw such a status of a file. But no worries, the difference between 0.9x-4 and the current version will denote what is going on.

Thanks again for your time,
Peter

Roy, these are more theories than practice. I have it running though. This is not much about receiver chips when the DAC just can accept it.
But leave it be for now please. Quite some things have to be sorted out, like the soundcard Telstar mentioned.
When all has been sorted out and it is working, you will hear about it ...

No ? what my sig says is that I use 48 samples of latency even with 176400. I know that looks a bit strange, and is a remainder from indeed playing Quad. I will change it.

... But this won't allow you to play 88.2 files (which just exist) over USB ?

Josef, I am sorry, but you don't get it. What you quoted from me is somehow interpreted by you 180 degrees the other way around;
When you have a FLAC album, it has to be converted and the result is again such a Unicode file.
When you copy your files to the XX-Drive, well, they have to be copied, right ?

And if you want to do that with 10,000 files, you can be as persistent as you want, it is not going to work. Not with a player like this. This is not about me but about the principles of the player. And its purpose of course. Well, you know ...

I don't understand what you don't understand about this. I am sorry.
Peter

No, it doesn't play here either. I don't know yet why, but it must be me somehow.
Look below though, which says that the file is from another PC and therefore it is blocked. I neever saw such a thing, and it may be related. The button where the mouse pointer is can remove that blocking. It doesn't help.

Strange ...
When you find another one of this, please let me know.
And when you want, you may email me about the origine of this. Maybe it helps ...

Arrgghh ... but they probably forgot to write it in the specs ?! I don't know whether you tried, but if not, just do.

I don't think chances are high that 44.1 -> 96 will emerge in XX. It is not good for sound quality, and I'm afraid there are better things to do ...

The DAT file thing.


It seems a long way around, but basically that is what it comes down to, yes. This is not all though, and part of the problem is displaying it correctly. So, it is unlike you said in the beginning that this is about playing the music only. It is also nice to see what you're playing.
Remember, the trick is that from an 8.3 name the original can be obtained, and while (code page) conversions don't work, this works.


Yes, I have. But I can't recall anymore why they couldn't do the job. Maybe something with rights, maybe something I could solve today because of more knowledge ... but back then, it was useless.


In theory yes, but I think you didn't get that there is no GUI at all. There's just nothing. Also under the hood ... nothing.


I don't recall I said something like that, although I will have said something that makes you think this. Anyway :
Same problem as before : there is nothing in memory to change, because ... well, there is nothing in memory. I'm afraid you try to understand something which isn't even there. Besides that, it is irrelevant. Also the context of 10,000 files is not "justified", as talked about before.


Ehhm, wrong ?
I think if you want to talk in terms of "I/O hungry" it is time to tell, well, don't talk in suggestive terms while you actually don't know. Strange though, because you were able to explain something about 350 bytes. So you do know, which leaves "suggestive";
But ok, here are your numbers :

A coverart picture is some 100KB. Better throw those out, because already one of them is 286 times larger than those 350 bytes.
Next is the track to play, which 1:1 goes along with that 350 bytes. I advice you to make a 64 mp3 of everything, because such a (5 minute) 50MB track really is 142857 times larger than those 350 bytes. Forget about hires files at all.

Now, shall we stop this subject so I can continue with useful things ? (btw, go ahead if you like; I really don't mind. What I do mind is justifying about things which really don't make sense).
One of them might be examining those symbolic links again. Note though that this won't help me a bit for those who have FLACed everything. It also doesn't help when you denote "Copy to XX-Drive" which for sure you will do once you have an SS disk.

Peter

Well, let's start with the Galleries.

And let's begin with your end : randomizing the Playlist itself -> that's ok with me. Not difficult either.

About the empty jpeg, hmm ... I will try it with you provided example. Note though that it was you who saved that file in the first place. Not XX or Amazon etc. So in the end I don't get what happened and/or what you did about it. Note that the data obtained from Amazon must be explicitly saved (the yellow bordered items).
But thanks for finding the cause. I will make it proof to that anyway.


Yes that looks tedious. I'd be the first to agree. But ... somehow your approach to, say, "playback" is different from others. I'm not sure where it comes from, and probably it is justified (why not), but it is not how XX has been setup. I mean (in general that is) : you seem to want to create playlists explicitly and physically, but this is not what is being done, and at least I never do it. Ok, I did, when the Galleries weren't there yet ...

In fact I think I explained it in my previous post, but probably you have it in your mind somewhat different and now it doesn't come through. What if I say this : Playlists as such indeed are being made, but not saved. Does that help ?

So, what you got from my post is creating Galleries in order to act as playlists, or something like that. And yes, when done like that, it's a tedious operation. Of course you *can* go about like that, and most probably it was implied by me as an answer to wanting to have playlists, but still the rule is : "... but not saved". Remember what I told earlier about myself : I wouldn't like to listen to the same tracks over and over. So why save a playlist ?

Maybe I'd better explain it from another angle, and tell what the Galleries are for;
The Galleries are there to group your albums to whatever angle you want, and one album can be in as many Galleries you like. For instance, a Miles Davis album could be in Jazz as well as in Male Singers at the same time.

Looking at your example structure it looks wrongish to do everything you want to do with it. It should be

XXHighEnd (as the main root for music data)
--Pop
----Abba
------Best of
------Gold
----Beatles
------Nr1
------Yellow Submarine
----Steve Miller Band
------The Joker
--Ambient
----Fripp & Eno
------KaZeMa
--Rock
----Steve Miller Band
------The Joker

Note that the only entries you made explicitly are XXHighend, Pop, Ambient and Rock. The others just emerge by appointing the the albums to an entry like Rock. Thus, appoint The Joker (which is somewhere on disk) to Rock, and the remainder of the structure emerges automatically.

What I pointed out in the above is not new, and otherwise you will say "yea, I could make that up myself". True. But the merits of this structure are much more rich than your example. You now can :

Select the main XXHighEnd folder. And indeed, this is not allowed by clicking on it, which you can do for everything else. So, since XXHighEnd is the root, it will be shown in the textbox at the bottom, and it is a matter of removing the right part and click search. Note that after this it's in the Favorites (F button) and you can select it from there. Btw, this is what I personally almost always use for a source (and hardly the Rock etc. folders).

When the structure is like this, you can click Pop, Ambient etc., and there is your list of Pop etc. albums.
Might you have a pile of Pink Floyd under Rock, then you'd see that at traversing down from Rock to Pink Floyd, you can click the Pink Floyd folder, and there are all your PF albums. Or click one. Or click one track (this latter is always dangerous because it takes explicit attention by me because of some redundancy there).

Now it is the whole point, that whatever emerges in the Library area, it can easily be narrowed down by typing in the textbox next to the Search button. And try to keep in mind, when I ask for your "XXHighEnd" folder, 12000 albums pop up, or some 150,000 tracks for that matter. So, no matter I selected unaccording the type of music (hence I selected nothing), at typing Pink F ... there they are instantly. Including a few classical covers this time.
Note that I also could type ABBA in advance, and *then* start to select from the embedded explorer. Only things containing ABBA will show up.

There are many more things for narrowing down (like date creation), and they are not difficult to find.
But now back to the subject : with these facilities at hand, why would one ever need to create a *saved* playlist ?? I just don't get that, never mind it will be justified to want it. But since it is (as perceived by me !) not needed, why go through the trouble.
But you could try this too :

Whatever you have in the Playlist at a certain moment, and no matter how it emerged there, if you like it as a playlist, you can select all the tracks, and rightclick - save it to a playlist you create on the fly. This is less than 10 seconds work. This playlist as I see it (and wich kind of was the angle I talked from in the previous post) is a Gallery with all its faciities, and once asked for via embedded explorer, you again can select and narrow down as usual.

Josef, it seems you know a bit more from IT stuff than average, and it should not be difficult to get the merits of this. But you forgot one thing : setting up your music library in the first place. You just don't have it, although you have albums on disk somewhere of course.
Keep this in mind, because I think it is important.

Another thing is, I'm afraid you never got to listing your physical albums in the Library Area. Just -again- select a root folder to it by means of that same textbox at the bottom, and they will all show up. This is your base for creating Galleries. You most probably already will have a Pop and Jazz etc. structure. You can just use it from there, select that Jazz, next select all the albums showing up and create a gallery Jazz from it under that XXHighEnd Gallery folder. And when you're at it, press the R there. It will work. But what it does is bringing forward albums (or tracks) in the visible area. That won't work with three only, because all three are already visible ...

Now, if you look at the pile of text above, I can very easily type a 10 fold of this to explain all about the Galleries. Easily. And it has to be done for the manual the upcoming time. I only want to say, there is much much more in there than you'd expect, but look a bit through IT eyes. Not everybody can do that, you can.

But randomizing the Playlist itself ... it can be done. Why not.
Peter

(not checked for typos)

If that is so, it indeed doesn't say much. But I recall performing it myself a few years back, and that I could use ASIO ? but then the soundcard I used supports that, which is a prerequisite of course.

The Double indeed is there to kind of trick the DAC and force it into a mode it might be better at. Quattro the same (for 192KHz DACs). But don't upsample, because then you'll have just done something else. Also jitter specs should be better, but YMMV here.


I think I am going to find myself a USB soundcard. Didn't look into it yet, but they exist of course. I actually start to wonder how things work, then. Anyway, I should be seeing similar to what you experience with your DAC. I think.

Peter

If XX plays WMA please point me out how to do that !

But no, I'm afraid it doesn't.

XXHighEnd can play AIFF but can not convert permanently from/to it. But this is because nobody asks. And might you ask ... later ...

I assume that WMA is lossless, but you never know, and it can be lossy just as well. I would ask if I were you ...