Thank you for trying !

Do you, by accident, know whether that happens with 2 tracks only ?

boleary,

It is me doing something wrong. So it's not about that. However, the header of this file does not look normal to me. What did you rip this with ?
And can it be so that you ripped this differently (with other software) than your other (playing) albums ? Or that you applied tagging to it afterwards or anything else that makes the difference ?


Btw, did your hotkeys start working again ?

Dave, any chance you can get me one of such a file ? http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=721.0
One is enough, and the two in a row I will test by copying it to another name.
Please don't pick a particular small one, unless you can recognize that doesn't matter. It you are not sure, pick two afterall (two of which the second won't play).

Btw, I think I know what is causing all this (since it is proven that it plays), and it must be related to the longwinding process of conversion which takes place, but in an area I could never test because of not having any AIFFs. I think you should be up and running (your) tomorrow, Dave.

... excluding error messages (Mani).

Btw, I'd better provide explicit AIFF->WAV conversion with it because it is stupid to convert these files (real time) over and over.
Ok ok ok.

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