zaza, I sent you an email ...

I would say :

1. Go to the Library Area. At the bottom fill in the path to the new albums.
Note that everything you fill in there, will not be shown later at retrieval, thus, g:\wav\JZHolidyAquisitions\ is what you don't want to show (and copy to the Library !)
2. Now press Search, and all the albums in there will show. There can be more than the newly (16) added.
3. Next, browse through the result, and select (ctrl-click etc.) all the albums you want to add to one Library.
4. Then, right-click and and from there put them in the Library you want.

But this is what you knew, I'm sure.
You can replace 2 with pressing the little D button and enter a "rip date". Now you will get only those which were ripped at or after that date. This function works a little awkwardish, but it can fulfill a handy job.


Having said this, I know what you mean. It is kind of clumsy to know what is new, and how to add them fast to the Libraries you want (the new albums don't need to be in the same folder, and they certainly won't go all to the same Galery). But this is exactly what 0.9v-4 will be about. Also think of newly found coverart, and you can imagine that improvements are needed here and there, but also that it is all lot of work (for me I mean) because it is already hard to think of how things can be done best (by us, the users).
This is also about the "Reprocessing" the releasenotes of 0.9-v3 talk about.

Don't hesitate to come forward with ideas, because I can imagine that exactly this part is performed differently by everybody.
Peter

Thank you Fidelio, glad to help out.

If there's anything else ...

The Sample Rate in the Dac Is settings will never cause to upsample. This is what the checkboxes Double/Quattro do. However, when Dac Is is set to e.g. 44.1 these checkboxes are not available.
Generally you could say that the Dac Is is a kind of self protection. But :

For the bit depth this is another matter; when the bit depth is higher than 16 (and generally you should choose 32, no matter your DAC can do 24 only) it determines the output *when necessary*. Thus, using the volume slider at other than -0dB, would be such a situation.
Now the Dac Is works the other way around : when set to a 16 bits settings, you will force the output to be 16 bits.

There's some more things, which work as "natural" as possible, like the file being 24 bits, but your DAC just can't cope (XX can only know this by your Dac Is setting). Now the output sound will be downrated to 16 bits. Same with the sample rate but only in a special occasion : when the file is 352800 (DXD) and your DAC is 176400 or 192000 (which would be the most normal except for the few the world owning a 35200 capable DAC) downsampling will take place to 176400.

There are some more of these "natural" things, and in the end it comes down to that you should set Dac Is to what it really is, ... unless you e.g. want to compare a 24 bit file with 16 bit output. Note that forcing the other way around, like a 16 bit file outputting in 24 bits, has NO effect. Not when it needs 16 bits only (and which is not the case when you use the digital volume !).


So, this is normal, because XX can't know what your DAC really is capable of (which is not completely true, see the DAC Test (last option under Dac Is)), but anyway doesn't use any "over" settings as explained above. IOW, try a DXD file (2L.no), and you will see that it won't work, but it does work when the DAC is set to what it really is (and then it downsamples). Might you try this in reality, don't forget to tick the AA (Anti Alias) checkbox for noise free result, and tick the Mem checkbox because otherwise the (larger) tracks won't fit into memory.


It most certainly does. You would be the first one reporting this, *unless* you're using analogue out from the soundcard. Your description (first post) doesn't tell this, or otherwise I wouln't know how you go from the soundcard to the DAC.
Note that if you are using the latest XX version, XX is not able to play in Shared Mode (in earlier versions it was, but this has been eliminated because it could confuse users by it not being clear whether that would be bit perfect or not (and Shared Mode would not be that).
Please tell me that you are using analogue out because otherwise ...
Maybe you can use your mobo's sound for testing, although I'm fairly sure you will encounter other problems (they *never* work in full, opposed to what is needed here). It will allow you to compare and analyse further, when that indeed doesn't allow the Windows volume.


This depends a bit on your soundcard, but listening to you I'd say no (the 16/44 in the soundcard will be "hard" I guess).
Upsample to 24/192 isn't possible anyway, but upsample to 24/176.4 is. Tick the Quattro plus Upsample box for that (and tick AA for comparison, and which officially should be better, which I personally wonder).

Nooo !!


I didn't interpret that as directly connected.

So indeed, that is why the volume is so low by default, and it depends on your gain when you start hearing something. The steps are in 6dB (yes, that rough), so if you slowly move up step by step.
BUT BE CAREFUL ... if you don't have sound for other reasons, and at sometime you find the culprit, the digital volume may be way too high.
But in any occasion : Windows volume does not work (which you wouldn't want for SQ reasons, but that's another matter).

So please be careful.

The digital volume itself works like no other digital volume, and even with 16bit output it can be used with high quality up to -18dB. When your DAC is 24 bits (and tell that to XX) the output will be in 24 bits, and you are good until you can't hear sound anymore.

But first let's try to get any sound from it at all ...
Peter

Hi Fidelio,

Because you (obviously ?) jumped right into the middle of "some stage" of XXHighEnd, being today's version, you most probably didn't follow what is going on, hence why you have some of the problems you have. And I know, by now this needs a manual, which actually is in the release notes from bottom to top and which would take ages to read.
I'll try to explain a few of your issues in short :


You may not believe it, but this is not related to anything. It is just a bunch of coincidences at all your trials, not recognizing what causes what because there's too much. However, I think and hope I can solve all your problems in one go : choose Engine#3 and slide the volume slider fully up and set your primary device to the soundcard you want to use.
If this doesn't help you, we'll see further, ok ?


Engine#1 and #2 are not exactly obsolete, but what you expect from them might work by accidence. So, Engine#3 supports all the sample rates and bit depths you can imagine (up to 352800/24 or /32), and for #1 and #2 this was just never made, but some combinations might work. The development is in #3, and for that matter you can be glad that you like the sound of #1/#2, because you can't imagine what to wait for with #3. .
All 'n all, nobody here is even ever trying these bitrates for #1/#2, which obviously comes from the(ir) fact that #3 just works, which isn't (wasn't ?) the case with you.
Btw, I don't think that I'll ever let all the samplerates etc. work in #1/#2, which probably for the highest rates isn't even possible.


Here too, please ignore it.


Be careful here, because the "busy" indicates that you are, say, messing around a bit at testing and stuff (which you can't help of course). Important to know is though, that both the checkboxes on the Advanced tab of the Sound Device Properties should be ticked, and when that settings is changed, you *must* reboot (Vista bug). If you then still get "busy" messages, we'll work that out in detail.


I assume you talk about the window in the middle, or let's say the 2nd window (there are 3);
The principle is that there are machanisms to load tracks in the Playlist Area, and there are mechanisms to play tracks in Playlist Area. The latter generally is the Play button.
The first group, loading tracks into the Playlist Area can a.o. be done via the Library Area, and that by itself in a couple of ways (10 or so). One of them is double click the album, another is selecting the album(s !) and press Load, a next is rightclick - show / load tracks and choose.
Don't forget, only with Play music playback starts.


This only works for Engine#3, and note that *there* you can't use the windows volume anymore.
Note that the volume in XX is not meant for volume control, but for improving sound for two reasons which may not apply to you :
1. You could leave out your pre-amp (and that's why the slider is default set so low);
2. 6 or 12dB attenuation most probably improves sound, but it is up to you to determine this).


For Engine#3 yes. For the other Engines the result is unknown (please note that when this was created it was taken into account, but was never tested). With Vista you must be extremely careful, because when not working in Exclusive Mode (hence #1, #2, all commonly known players not working with Exclusive Mode) Vista will resample to the setting set at the before mentioned Advanced tab in the device properties).
If you didn't grow into this ... it's all quite confusing, but almost logic once you know ...


No.


If this doesn't get you started, please call again !
Peter

Guys,

I bumped into this one today : http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/

Since this (see below screenshot) is free for the next 21 or so hours, I downloaded and installed it, with the thought that maybe this would be a good tool for the near future and remote control stuff.
The tool itself (at a glance) looks promising, but currently I don't know (and can't know) where it will be a good thing for XXHighEnd, and whether I can't do similar stuff myself (note though that it seems to be loaded with system info stuff, which always might come off handy).

Just in case, and since it is free today, install it and get a key yourself.
Note : the procedure is completely vague to me, and the .txt which comes along with it seems to talk about sending an email, while no email address can be found. Instead, I think you must start WireKeys from the tray icon that will be there, and enter the info from the .txt in the screen under the option "registration" at the bottom. That seemed to work, but from here I don't know. Will I receive an email ? do I need another key ? where to enter that ? is it already activated ?

The vagueness IMO comes from the other instance "Giveaway of the Day" which is in between now.
Btw, somewhere I found that the key (??) will be received withij 48 hours. So let's see what happens.

If you want to go for this, be sure to do it within 21 hours from the time of this post.

Peter

All agreed.

And no, that third graph is my (indeed PCI tweaked) XP HTPC machine. And FYI, that serves so many processes that I forgot them. For fun I name a few : IIS web server, heat control (via OPC might it say something to you) with hundreds of sensors, it runs satellite receipt (MyTheatre), DVD etc. movie playback (TheaterTek), servers Photoshop and stuff, all the Wave analysis tools, digital recording, DVD/Audio ripping tools, photo storage (over 100K photo's), serves network media playback (networked player, networked TV), audio calibration (think of subwoofers), anime creation tools (like icons, smileys), is the printserver, and some other stuff which count some 150 icons on the desktop.
This is not my audio PC, and it looks like I'm the only one on the planet who never saw a stutter (video) coming from it.
Also, this is not some kind of show-off, but it proves what can be done from a miserable P4 with hyperthreading shut off and 1GB of memory, as long as you carefully watch what happens when, and what causes which. The key is really there, and instead of reading the books or copying statements of others, I write the books. Hahaha.

For some trust or good feeling on your side, I was the very first on this earth that started and introduced legacy Enterprise Resource Planning on PC's , when the PC's were 12MHz and the servers (it needed two) were 33MHz, in 1987. That configuration served some 100 concurrent users, performing over 100K transactions per day.
A show off afterall ? ah, maybe, but at the time Microsoft bought Fox Software (the tool I used) and turned it into FoxPro, which later became Visual FoxPro, and which contained 1000nds of bugs I (my company) had to work around but sometimes couldn't, Microsoft told me that the tool was meant of 10 users max. ... but I had customers with 250 users and I gueranteed that the 250th user wouldn't notice the difference opposed to when he was alone in the system. Remember, it is the MS books you are reading !
Today you find this in e.g. the Library functions which is based upon the exact same (API stuff) as Explorer is based upon. You may need over 10000 albums with pictures (which I have here) to notice, but what happens in the Library area for speed is undoable in Vista itself including when the files would be indexed by Vista. It is not difficult to outperform the creator (MS) with his own tools, as long as you recognize the flaws, watch carefully where they are, and then avoid them (creativity comes first here).

Now you know.

Mr. ShowOff.

Now I don't understand. Which graph ? I referred to a graph that shows 1000us for standard, and now you call this good ? It's the most lousy ever, and all still runs ok. If it is your conclusion that I thus must have fine tuned other things etc.  ... no.


Same priority is OK at continueous 100% useage. No, it's not the best.
If sound gets stalled (hickup) this is not about CPU useage but about interrupts and how the CPU has to deal with *that*.


Please don't make up things you didn't encounter yourself. We are talking XXHighEnd here, and you did not hear clicks or pops or anything, because at this moment you cannot describe them to me. So, get yourself familiar with what is a click, and what a pop, and what a glitch and what a hickup and what a stall and what a continues repeat and what a tick and what crackle and what cracks. They are all successively described and act as they sound (hehe) similar to video terms, and you use the terms randomly with causes which aren't true. In your books yes, but I asked you to throw them away.


I explained the sequence twice. Start with looking for something like "every byte that goes into normal available physical memory goes into additional virtual memory as well", which was the second time.



You didn't read yourself into that topic I pointed at a 100 times. If so, you wouldn't have asked this silly question.
IOW, that's already in there.


I sure believe you, and I just tried to make some point there. Look at my first remark in this post ... somehow we both switch things upside down. Never mind, as long as you understand that my system is the most lousy (and this is no yoke).


Beware what you're saying, because one step further and you're going to admit that it all can't work.


What shall I do, close this topic, or let us keep on going with word games ? 

However, before I fall into my bed ... it would be more fair to say that the one process can't stuff the total amount of 1200MB in the virtual memory, so the OS didn't even try. And remember, the OS wouldn't know about parts of that process to swap out, so its all or nothing.

Conclusion (whatever it's worth) : when it's not the OS that lets the memory grow (remember, that happens track per track when they are small) but it's the program itself (this exceeds my 1350 available physical memory now), I get the memory overflow.

Now, do you want me to switch on the Swap file in order to test this and see whether then no error occurs ?

Which I could incur for by playing another such track right after it ...

This is all about precise math (the 2nd track is 318 MB which would be needed twice temporarily), but I dare to take the conclusion that via-via-via this track should have fitted in my 1350MB normal available physical memory, which was 1200MB full when that (2x) 318MB track was loaded. The additional virtual memory seems to have shut off completely, once it reached its own limit, WHICH WOULD BE THE MOST LOGICAL TO ME BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE BECOME INCONSISTENT ONCE IT HAS TO THROW OUT THINGS FROM THERE.

Something to sleep on.

But ... (I just can't stop ) here's a thought for you :

Tonight I played an album which consisted of one track, just larger than the space of additional virtual memory. What happened  ?
Allocated physical memory (the green figure) and virtual memory (the "swap file" figure) were equal. Both 1200MB. I am fairly sure that if that track would have been 200MB larger (beyond normal available physical memory) I would have receive an error.
Fairly sure is not 100% sure.

Also, and I cannot prove this yet to be related to my "issue", these kind of tracks almost always end in an error (XXEngine3 stopped working) of which I can't find the reason. This happens when playback has finished, hence (???) the memory is freed.
Highly speculative, because I myself can do things wrong. Nevertheless this is the case, say, 90% of occasions when such tracks are played.

I just looked, and XXEngine3 indeed is compiled for X86 too. What I recall though, is that I did this for safety and it never was proven that it is necessary.
Besides that, coincidentally today I most probably found why XXHighEnd wasn't compatible with X64 in the first place. But that's for another time tro try.

I just tried to build an explicit X64 for you (in case you want to try), but there's an external dependency on X86 somewhere.
Later ...

I keep on going, as long as you can bear it.


Difference between theory and practice. I, in my system, I often have three or four bulk (SATAII) copies running (no disks are shared), and I can start a loop or two that eats officially 100% CPU, and there's not any anomaly at audio playback. Ok, I don't say that it is the best for SQ, but no anomalies (no clicks, pops, glitches, nothing). This immediately makes your explanations without value. They may matter to you, but not to me and because they do not matter to me, they should not matter to anyone once their system is, well, right (whatever that exactly is). Also, whether it is defender, prefetching b*ll, Indexer, and filling the swap file all together, my playback stays stable. This is not only on Vista with Engine#3, but it is also with Engine#1 and #2 on XP (or Vista).
I trust it you believe me, and it is not important that this is so, or that I am "good" or whatever valued can be connected to this. It is about one thing only : it can be done, and a stupid spike in the cpu does (proven !) NOT matter. What does matter, however, is the priority of that spike, and this is largely out of our direct control. Indirect it is though, and the start of the description of that is in my first post from today. Whether you can agree with that or not is up to you (although I'd like to really make it clear), and fact is that *I* will use it for myself (read : XX).


Yes, of course I have, because that was in that other topic (Edward), and with my description just above you see that we indeed make our own subjects. However, you started the subject of the swapfile, I said it is not necessary and (hence) not advised, while it is you bringing up the other subjects (e.g. your clicks) and it is may hijacking your subject (no swap file) to testify that that just can create the clicks (at track boundaries, read the other topic). So again :


I try to stay at the original topic ...


I knew you would agree on that. Sadly, XX is not growing setp by step to over 2GB. THE OS DOES.  (read my posts again if this sounds unfamiliar to you, and mark the over 2GB. So yes, XX grows, but not over 2GB. The OS does that for me, and it does that in the VM area).



It is not important how many times you said it, because I will never ever agree. Why ? because the principle of needing to shut down the swap file is wrong (and *that* is because we can't add memory for ever and ever). Besides that, and this is the most important, I don't need to shut down the swap file in order to avoid the clicks - which are not clicks but small silent gaps (did you already read that topic ?). If you need to shut down your swap file in order to avoid clicks you are the only one needing that. Did you hear this ?
Do a search, ask the question, I don't mind. But *might* you find posts about clicks, be very very sure this is your situation.


Can you imagine I don't care ? Oh, I care about that fact allright, and I care about that I learned this (from you), but it is irrelevant to your first post and my first response.
Besides, you rigidly do you approach this actually ? I mean, you say that a process that dies on a >2GB memory need doesn't suffer from an error of crossing the 4GB limit. I know, I twisted your words, but I sure do say the same. Or better, this is what you say. But please don't, because nobody can understand, and the last one is me.



Yeah yeah yeah, you are joking. But do you want to know the truth ? Here it is :
Re: Check to see if your computer can cause drop-outs
The first graph is the one of my super system, standard 1000us.
So don't get inconfident, but please learn about theories not being right, or at least being incomplete.
Of course I am making fun here, but the truth is that this is my system, and thus also the truth is that *or* this picture (hence that latency checker) doesn't tell a thing *or* that 1000us is suffcient to even add the copying and loops I described above and still don't notice that.

Now, I beg you to understand what I call stress time, and which you are not allowed to map onto your thinking of what stress times should be. Keep in mind that all is prioritized, XX does all what it can to do that the best, but that some OS processes interfere with that, which processes in the end *have* to have the highest priority or otherwise things go wrong. Your presentation is way too simple and you only say a cpu spike causes this. Now, ban this from your mind, or bet a million with me and come over (I'll pay the ticked and you lose).

It is my humble suggestion that we (at least I) learned enough of this,and respect eachoters thoughts and goings. I sure respect yours, and I already am sure the bet will be off because long before the millions are grabbed together there will be some "aaah" and "oohh" and "did you mean *that* !". I recognized a few 1000 words ago that we agree, and said that. I am still confident we do, and I mean what I say.



That looks very wrong, and obviously is my fault. But please open a topic for it, and I'd say it can't be that hard when all is fresh and new, and I pay very good attention to what you have to say.

Nah, I guess the language barrier is bigger then we (or I) thought. It doesn't seem to be a matter of not wanting to answer, but merely about some 5GB you mention now, while I don't even recognize what it is about at first glance. That is, assuming that you are talking about the a,b,c,d, questions, I took 4GB for a limit because you have a 4GB system, and didn't think of that other 2GB limit. For that matter (I realize now) I couldn't even turn my a,b,c,d, into 2GB (and 2,5GB) because it would be the same problem. Also they can't be turned into e.g. 1.5GB (and 1.7GB) because that wouldn't make sense to the whole story. What story ? pfffff
Edit : Btw, language barrier, or not paying carefully attention from my side ? hehe


That is another example. This is not about me having them or not, it is about the subject itself which is not appropriate unless in the exact right context you don't want to discuss (well, I do it, and you don't respond to it). So this is talking miles along eachother.
And for the contents of this real subject : this can NEVER be about one track (testing). You need more, maybe 10. Somehow this goes right along you, and that is why you are not into the real subject from the beginning. And, this is why we never talk about the same. If this was about one track, I (and NOBODY) wouldn't care less how the swapfile behaves, or what happens without the swap file. Then it could only be about the size of one track (like you are testing). Big deal !


So indeed this is another example, and I can't understand what was unclear about that. But keep in mind please : I don't say that it's your fault; it's way bad communication which I now call the language barrier. But if you tiny winy allow me to be the psychologist : it can be well be so that this (underlaying subject) is so fixed in your mind that you just cannot read what I say : If a program is too large it won't start you say. And I say that a program can begin small, and later grows. Is this now clear ? So when it starts small it sure will be allowed to start in a memory area which lateron becomes too small because the program needs more. This is so basic ...
Besides that, XX is constantly acting like that. I told it, you can see it for yourself, it is all over in various topics ... and it is the subject of the problem. What problem ?


We're kind of helpless I'm afraid. Hahaha


PS: If you have clicks with the swapfile on, your system isn't perfect. If this is during playback in the middle of tracks, your PC is doing things it shouldn't. Solving that by shutting down the swapfile is the WRONG SOLUTION. First something else is using the swapfile and/or that works at the wrong priority. And yes, I too use the PC during playback, hehe.
So, that was for distraction. 



I know, and it is more appreciated than you might think.
Also, you forced me to dive into things I didn't do before.
Now if I'd only solved your foolbar problem ...