And this one ?

Be careful that you indeed use the appropriate ChangeWP versions ! (keep track of date/time).

Edit :
NO ! This one is wrong by itself. Do not use this one to test !
(removed it)

I am, say, 100% this will lead to something, but not yet ...
I don't even *have* music on the drive XX is "installed".

Anyway, below is a version of ChangeWp.exe which might produce an error of use.
Don't forget to pull down the Details page (if there).

So now you need some more bits, right ?
That won't be in the upcoming version (I hope today), but the next.

Ok, thanks very much !


No way, not yet, not with Engine#3 !

Maybe ...


It depends a bit (hehe) on what you mean by this;
What does it mean in your situation "can set exclusive mode on" ?
Also, what message(s) do you get exactly when you "now" (??) try XX and Engine#3 ? (remember, it can't work with 24 bits, but the (sequence of) message(s) is important ...
Do note that I think you have to try with 24 bit material, because only then Engine#3 will try to make a legal connection to your soundcard which can only do 24 bits (or ?).


PS: Your first screenshot won't come through ... (it might be important for me).

Of course you are right. But please keep in mind, so far "officially" no other source (!) than 44100/16 is supported; that Engine#1 accepts more is not by explicit design. IOW, when 96 (88.2) is officially supported as source, those options will be there (I'm not sure what the conditions will be, but I think an example would be downrezzing to 44.1/16 when the source is e.g. 88.2/16 or /24 because your soundcard can't handle more).


Although I can imagine the logic you see, no. Double -as how I applied it- eliminates jitter, and Upsampling theoretically adds it again (read : does not eliminate it), but adds perceived resolution.
Although I never try it anymore, in the beginning of Engine#3's life it was very clear that Doubling was by far the most dynamiccally of them all. It was even too much. If all is right, you should be able to perceive that with Unattended Playback, Q1 = 14, No Invert and no Core Appointment. The only difference with the early days of Engine#3 would be the Priority Settings, which cannot be related to any of todays settings.

Awaitening your results !
Peter

Actually, yes, I changed something ! When I read this at first (yesterday) I wasn't aware of it, but today reading this again it sprung to my mind that I have been working on support for 24 bits. So, what I did was actually adjusting the program with some debug "enhancements" and found quite another problem so I quit that project for a while, but forgot to remove that debug code. Actually this is interesting ...

What I found that, in fact, 24 bits is already supported. Mind you, for selecting the device, and NOT for putting through 24 bits per sample (per channel). Now, for you -and judging- a bit background on this :

In the process of getting the first steps of 24 bit to work I recognized that there would be no real reason that 24 bits would be hold back for Engine#1. So, that should just work. However -and this is as hard to understand as it is to explain- there is no way it can be checked whether this really works. Keep in mind : Engine#1. Why ? well, because Vista will ALWAYS resample to the rate you set in the Advanced Properties of the audio interface; set it to 44100/24 and it will do just that (even when 96/24 material is fed), and set it to 96000/24 it will do just that again (even when 44100/16 is fed). Please read the before carefully.

From the above follows, that if Engine#1 would not support 96/24, and knowing that if you do not set the properties to 96/24 it would not output 96/24 anyway, it works the other way around just the same : feed with 44100, but since you set the properties to 96000 it would output that.
No way to check the reality of it, unless you could hear it by the better quality, which is a problem by itself when you don't have the reference yet, like me.

Engine#1 will not play Exclusive, and it will not play bit perfect.

Where above leads to nothing, and thus not having a reference to check either, there is one solution only : use Engine#3. Now here I have another problem, which may be a problem of my setup; dunno yet, but for others it might be something to check and report back to me :

My audio card supports 96/24 (and 192/24);
When -outside of any player- I use the testbutton (see screen copy below) I receive the message that the audio device is in use. Mind you, it is not.

Sidenote : With Engine#3 -whatever is set in those properties- does nothing, except for the neccessary ticking of the two checkboxes (see screen copy again).

I can be fairly sure though, that when the test tone (at clicking that test button) does not sound, Engine#3 will not be able to attach to the audio device similarly. Don't get confused now : ... which says nothing much about Engine#1 being able to connect to the same samplerate / bit depth, because then it goes through the mixer. On the other hand, when Engine#1 plays through the setting (like 96/24) you can be sure that the audio device is capable, like mind officially is.

Now comes the strange part, 95% leading to a bug in Vista :
My test tone gives an error at 96/24, unjustified;
When I now ge back to first 44100/16 try the test tone (ok !), then to 44100/24 (ok !), *then* go to 96/24, the test tone does work.

This doesn't help for Engine#3 then working. However, I can imagine that if I go the same route in the software at assigning the device (first 44100 etc.) then maybe it works too.
It is here where I quit that little project because I'd say I'm too much depending on my own setup, and it might not be a Vista bug but a driver problem in my audio card. IOW, if it helps me, it wouldn't help you.

In all means do note : currently Engine#3 cannot perform 24 bit playback, because the bits just aren't provided by me. So there's no need to try whatever with Engine#3. What you could try though -and helping us with it- is trying the test tone procedure as described, and tell me whether it's different with you, or maybe the same.
If it's the same I could try to setup the same route in software, *then* add the 24 bit support, and then we might have it working.

So all 'n all, and maybe off topic, when I started working on 24 bit support, it seems that a Vista bug just does not allow 24 bit in Exclusive Mode. If that's true we're stuck. Together with that, I fully DIStrust Engine#1 really working in 96/24, no matter you feed 96/24 and no matter the output is 96/24. If you ask me, it (Vista) first samples back to 44100.

Help !

What shall I do ? the problem never occurs here. (nor with anybody else I think)
Is it a problem for you to provide those screen copies ?

Hi Eric,

I notice that you mix the two subjects "last track highlighted" and "Does not work anymore". I didn't change anything to the "last track highlighted" subject (nor did I say so). Thus, I have been working on the "Does not work anymore" only. Ok ?


Of course you are talking about the last track thing, but "no change" cannot be true. Before this did not work (Does not work anymore), and now it does. Hence, now the folder name where the album is in, does not need to be the same as the name of the .cue file.


I don't think this is related since this is about a .wav file, and in the process concerned it is about a .cue file (it doesn't look good this registry entry, and sure it comes from somewhere / some problem). Looking at your description there's not even something going wrong (and the last track thing is no error as such, but just something inconvenient I must solve).


Note that this implies that before it also asked you for permission. Assuming this is correct ... WHAT ?!! so you say that at the start of each track the system asks you whether it's okay to run ChangeWP ?? In fact I can't believe that and maybe this is the first time (with this newly downloded version) only ? But if it's all the time indeed, please read this : Vista Users ... prepare yourselves ... and arrange for you rights.
If indeed it is so that the system asks you for permission each time, please copy the message(s !) concerned to me.


At least this shows that you have this outside of Cue Files. Since I can't copy this behaviour, I need data to do so (but please, if your rights weren't arranged for, do that first ! (see before)). So :
Please make a screen copy of explorer, showing the full path to the album concerned, and make a screen copy of the full contents of that folder (showing the .wav files and all that's in there). Also indicate which track you run when this happens.
To speed things up a bit, in parrallel you could email me the folder.jpg from this folder (album) so I can check whether something is just wrong with that image.


Sorry for the nitwitting, but I'm trying to find the culprit ! (on the "Does not work anymore", *not* on the "last track" thing, that's for later).
I hope I'm not too confusing ...
Peter

You could try to put below ChangeWP.exe (coming from the Zip) to put in your current XXHighEnd directory.
If it helps (which I assume ) it *must* be so that the name of the Cue File is different from the folder the Cue File is in (without .cue of course).

I know you said that this is the case Eric, so this should not help. But then I need the example somehow.

As far as I can see now, the second problem is also related to Cue Files;
That is, in the situation I have here, the Cue File itself (the .cue file) is named differently than the folder name it is contained in.
I don't think I can solve this ... but maybe I can afterall.

Anyway, maybe you can check whether this is your case too Eric ?

Peter

No, this is not just separate tracks. I'm not sure what it is yet, but I sure once had an album where each track produced the error.

Hi Eric,

On your first subject : I have seen this happening myself, although I never realized that this would be a Cue File (that's what your 1-file albums would be) problem. I will look into it, and most probably with the next version it will be solved.

The second subject, ChangeWP erroring out, I have seen too, but so far I did not recognize that this occurred with the separate tracks only. Anyway, this too will be solved in the next version.

Thanks for reporting,
Peter

Hi Russ,

Yes, that will incurs for problems.
It can be solved easily, and I just did not thing it were necessary. This is because this is explicitly solved in path and track names, but I never thought about the "drive" itself, that normally being F:\ or something like that, not thinking about share names.

Something to do ...

Thank you !
Peter

Ah ... So you mean :

Start XX, play and the CoverArt Wallpaper appears - Reboot without XX officially quit (Off button) ?
Yes, that woukd be so I guess. But do you mean this ? If Yes, I think that can't be helped.

Please compare with removing the Desktop Icons; once that happened and you would like to get the back the official way (rightclick on the Desktop etc.) you'd see that the system thinks they are still there.