And that is were the track sequence got wrong (well, I bet). So you could have selected tracks 1-8 first, and then added 9-12 to the selection. Or the other way around.

Anyway ... it's always nice to see my guessings workout. Now up to solving it ...

Actually I was already thinking about it, and I think I know where the problem is / can be solved. This will be a very tough job and requires a re-setup of things. By itself this is no problem because the speed has to be improved anyway, but it's so complex that I wonder when I will have achieved it.
FYI : This is about the (nearly unavoidable) sorting procedures which are used internally (again, these are dot-net functions) which sort a first column ok, but all of the others upside down. Yep, very similar to how the Library button operates (as you told, also upside down). In this case it would mean that your albums will sort okay, but the tracks within them will be upside down.

I don't want to bother you with my problems, but just want to indicate that there's many bugs in system software, and it takes much (in fact wasted) time to avoid them.
Currently I avoided this upside down bug by NOT sorting ... which is now attacked by the UDF-wrong sequence bug.

Oh well ...

Thank you for presenting the data Steve.
Peter

For throughput time it wouldn't matter. Besides that, maybe you don't want to use the Library features at certain times.

Note that one of the major problems is that the building up of the result can't be done in a separate "thread" and run parallel to anything else you are doing (but Engine#3 will keep on playing though). The stupid thing is that once the buildup is in it's own thread, the "main thread" will be free for adjusting the form with contents, then *that* holding up hugely.

That a form can't be stopped at receiving output is a dot-net failure, to which I so far did not find a solution. Documentation tells it works, but it just does not.
But give me some time ...

Ok. I'm sorry, but I did not get the logic of it (and I know that you know what you do, hehe) ...

So ... I can understand why you would run "XX" on its own core, however, what you'd really want (I think !) is having XXEngine3.exe in the other core opposed to everything else including XXHighEnd.exe. Do note that the latter consumes cpu just the same, which even can be heavy at the Library features as per the 0.9l version.

On the whole matter I already did not understand quite when I thought you let act the CPU as one core (can a Core2Duo even do that ?). But, *that* I did not understand correctly, or I most probably misread (I did not read it again ). So ...

So what you are doing now is dedicating the "nicely" spread tasks onto one core, and now things don't work, BUT which would be the same for people with one core only, so it has to be solved anyway. -> might not be easy.

I think it would be best to provide some options to appoint affinity to the various threads and processes (the .EXEs would be processes in my terms), including priority assignments.

But tell me, after reading this, would you still appoint both XXHighEnd and XXEngine3 to the same core ? if yes, all is different again (and probably you will be watching a movie by means of the other core ).

Hi Gerard,

To start with your last post ... good that you mentioned that. You left the "Test" checkbox checked ... 
If all is right the ToolTip tells you that that will produce 100 items (max) in the result ...

Then about the two harddrives ... yes, I thought about that. In fact I already allowed for subsequently adding more to the result by changing the Music Root, but I found that to be no way of working and removed it.
The real solution obviously is that in the text field for "Music Root" you can enter a string of several roots, which all will be incorporated.
I will add that.

Note though that if you could start all over, it will be more convenient for other reasons to "span" the disks, and let them act as one volume.
But your request is legit.

Peter

Btw, in order to prove the UDF formatted disk thing, below is similar, but now from a "normally" NTFS formatted disk.
What you see is that in the above the files are sorted by date/time of change (creation I'd say). This would be conform the UDF format which is the same principle as a CD is organized. Think of this : even a CDRom can be edited (as long as it's not officially closed). But what happens is that the TOC (table of contents) is overruled, all the foriginal files stay there but can't be found in the TOC anymore, and any new (or changed) files are physically added at the bottom. That's what the DIR command from Dos shows. Windows though can deal with it. But not everywhere ... (and this is for 100% sure; I know that from other software). Again, whether that's your culprit I can't tell yet.

You could look at the dates/times of the wrongly ordered files ...

Uhmm ... a Dos-box is something like the black icon below ... (I couldn't tell whether you were serious )

About Foobar, yes, but note that could be similar to my earlier remark about putting things in an array first and sort it there (myself). Note though that officially it wouldn't be the way (that way not being adaptive to future versions, or XP/Vista etc. not being compatible). But if it otherwise produces bugs which can't be overcome ...
Also note that this is kind of the problem when working "officially" (dot-net in XX' case). Look at Foobar ... it doesn't look much like "Windows" ... which is no drawback by itself, but tells me that it's all, say, unofficial (and the latter not being worth a penny really).


Anyway, look at the below Dos-box, and you see there what I talked about earlier; compare the sorting with the Explorer screen at the bottom;
That disk is "UDF formatted" and shows this behaviour. You could call this a bug by itself.
Now all you need to know further is that the various Windows functions (technical : like Dialogs) behave differently exactly on this matter. E.g. the Library function calls one of them, and the Library Area another. Explorer would be a third, although it should be similar to the Library Area.

Remember, I still did not say this is your problem; I'd need your Dos-box adventure for that ... 

It looks like you have a nice problem overthere ...

IIRC you can check the "base" ordering by means of a Dos-box and the DIR command. If it comes out sorted that's "Windows" controlling it. If it's not, then ... not. It would be out of my control and XX will work it out the same way.

BUT : I'm not 100% sure what's going on yet. So could you try the Dos-box thing ?
Try to compare it with something on your C: drive. That would be okay always (since NT4.0 / Windows2000 ) I think.

Uhohh ... I think I see what's going on ... that Ethernet disk / share, whatever it exactly is. This looks like a UDF formatted device (like a removeable harddisk could be) which won't sort ...
Look at your Albums, they are not sorted as well.

Btw, looking at this, you should (IMO) incorporate the "CDs" in the "Music Root" (Settings tab). It could even differ on the sorting ...
If this doesn't help, could you eleborate on the disk storage where this resides ? (a brand is good for me, or even a link to the manufacturer's site).

So you don't apply anything for XXEngine3.exe ? This is the one producing the sound !

Okay, I tried it myself. I really don't see the problem ...

Don't look at the "Today" and times as shown in the screencopy below. That will be settings of Feedreader I don't know (and don't want to find out). The main point is : it just works.

Ok, that's only convenient (I have exactly the same). Then please tell me how exactly you set things to use one core and/or set affinity to what. Then I should be able to copy the behaviour.

For a better orientation here are some remarks :

The order you receive back from the Library button is something from the particular system part in the development environment, which I -at the time- could not solve within the time I gave myself for that. Possibly today I could ...
On the other hand, there's stuff in the Windows environment which actually always is there,  but not often noticed. For example, it might well be that when you copy files via Explorer, and you watch the sequence as how the files are dealt with, it's exactly the same. But do you care (or actually see it) at copying ? no.
Another thing for background info is that never mind the bunch of files you selected, the SEQUENCE you selected them, is maintained. This is "Windows" too, and I can imagine applications where this is useful. User-friendly is another matter, because once you selected all, you can't see the difference in the selected sequence anymore.

Both subjects in the above interact, and they interact wrongly. On the same matter you might have noticed long time ago that track 01 and 02 can be swapped in the Playlist (the sequence of the others just being allright). A long time I thought it was a (Windows) bug, until I found that it was just me and the way of clicking. I can't even tell right now what that was about, since I am now just used to doing it right.
Anyway, when I'd create an intermediate "array" and sort the things in there first, these "anomalies" would be gone. The "features" would be gone too then though.

Note that there is a difference between the Library Button and how that selects (in sequence) and how Explorer does it (and both is out of my control, unless I apply the intermediate as told). Btw, you really should use Explorer instead of the Library Button, but that's another matter.



Here, you received a result (after Search) of Albums including the Tracks, and the sequence is per Album (or Artist). Although I never tried it, here too you could have selected the range of 09, 10, 11, 12 first, and after that the range 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08 (I assume all are from the same Album). Remember, Windows can remember these things (and I only don't know whether that happens here; I just never tried it).
Also, it could well be that selecting from bottom to top (shift click etc.) presents all upside down in the Playlist (which would be correct then btw).

Now with the last assumption, don't get confused when the result is in Albums only (and not in Tracks); when you'd then select from bottom to top, the sequence of the Tracks within one Album would be ok, but the Albums themselves start with Z at the top (yeah, that would be ZZTop, haha).

Does this help you ?

Hi Steve,

To answer your question about the screen-copy : SnagIt. It's not free, but worth the money for sure.
You could also try the printscreen button (shift-printscreen/ctrl-printscreen capures other areas of the screen) and then paste into a Word document and attatch that here.

I'll try to respond on the other things in a next post ... so in the mean time you can make the screencopies (I think they are important in order to understand better -> thinks look odd to me so far).

Peter

Why would that be ?? In fact you just gave VERY valuabe information, since I run a dual core (a Core Duo in fact, which is different) myself, hence never would have been able to copy your problem. And, I guess more people run one core or let the processor act as one (Hyperthreading Off etc.).

I did not tell you, but I expected the "prioriy" to be a potential problem, although certainly not in the area you just explained. This *is* why I mentioned Invert myself. Now FYI :

Nothing uses too much CPU (unless you have a 12MHz XT ) but, as you said it, "intensive" is another matter. Invert indeed uses the CPU for 100% during a short period (but could be 2 seconds for a 60 minute track), which is no problem since it's in a separate thread which ... only is no problem when that thread is appointed to the other core. Hahaha. Uhhmm ...
... I just never thought about this, just by "experience" with my Core2Duo where this obviously is no problem.

What I will do is give that thread a lower priority, but with a one CPU-core situation hoping that the 2 seconds mentioned won't be 20 because of that.
It might explain too why people were bothered (I never hear them anymore ?) by "not gapless at all", because during the "track hopping" more stuff occurs besides (when asked for) inverting the phase. In that case, things might even workout very differently, and playback might be stopped by the thread using the cpu, and *that* is perceived as not-gapless. This, while the actual gap between the tracks is 3 seconds (etc.) further down the line.

As said, your post was very valuable. Please come up with more.
Thanks, Peter

But please put your data in your signature for the next time. It's not only covenient for seeing at a glance what you have, but it is the most valuabe at similar problems with different users, which can only show similarity in setups when the setups are shown. Besides that, it keeps me "knowing" who is who better, which also is important when problems arise.

Hi edward,

Actually ... I just tried everything and all ... can't let it go wrong here. Not with Double, not with UpSampling, not including Invert.  Also, I can't think of how it could go wrong. But ok, with you it is ...

Would you care to tell once again what DAC and connection you use (preferably in your signature) ?
Btw, do you have an example ? If you can let it go wrong with the Pink Floyds, The Roger Waters ... I have them all.

And, can you always repeat it with two subsequent tracks ? If not, think of even and uneven tracks. It matters (after pressing Play once).
Lastly, it isn't about tracks (or anywhere in the album path) with diacritical marks ? ... Cue files ?
Normal 44K1/16 tracks I presume ?

Lastly, with what program did you rip the lot ?