This would be a new feature-proposal in terms of an integrated feature of XX!
I just mentioned it, because I am thinking by myself of how to get all this structured.

Another, much easier,  way of doing it:

Peter could define XX as default audio player for .wav in the registry.
This way you could just by using Windows-Explorer search for the track.
Klick on it and XX starts playing. Or select a number of tracks and XX sorts and plays them all.
How about that?
Peter are you watching?

Cheers

Hi folks.

My 2 cents:

I think, an intelligent search mask -" google" for audio - filtering cd and/or titles is the way I'd like to run it.

Just some ideas:

I just put in "Clapton" and it shows me all samplers, cd resp. directories, and tracks.
I just select the complete CD or a track. 
I type in "stairway" and it exactly comes up the the right song.
This would also work with your genres if you start searching  further up the tree.
If you'd type Jazz and/or Folk it should show all CDs under these genres.
If you e.g. just look for cd's you should be able to skip .wav files from the search result.

It'll be a bit of a challenge of how to display all of that.

I am using a similar method, just using explorer-"search" when playing DJ on parties.
This is more than convienient and very fast.

Cheers

I'd recommend to also put the CD title (or all other information you like) into the filename.
You should be able to use a filter in the application to choose which fields to be shown.
In case you're generating  playlists, comprising  other than the original CD-folder tracks
you'll lack the CD, year or whatever  information.

I do not use any cue-sheets (the big mess!). I just extract anything from the filename.

Better think twice before you start the ripping-journey. I've been through that filename mess once - and spent quite some time to get it all fixed!

Cheers

Regarding my HD recommendation read the other thread (Western Digital WD RE2 - WD5000YS) . Don't waste your money on 160GB drives. We're talking Tbytes these days.

Core Duo over single Core Machines are an obvious improvement.

The introduction of PCI-E is IMO as great as the dual-core intro in terms of audio quality. On classic
PCI busses the devices had to share the bus. This was causing severe latencies on the bus, which had a major impact on e.g. USB sound.
With PCI-e the devices don't have to share the bus any longer. It's now rather a point to point connection.
You won't have any Latencies on a PCI-e bus.

Cheers

Hi there.

My 2 cents:

Harddisks are a hot issue, especially by looking at its reliability!

Reliability MTBF (mean time between failure) is IMO a key parameter to look at.
If it takes you 10 seconds or 12 seconds to load a full CD into RAM is for
our purposes IMO not relevant. 

I'd strongly recommend professional grade HD e.g.

Western Digital WD RE2 WD5000YS  7200/500GB

it comes with 1.200.000h  MTBF.

If you don't find them in an external enclosure, buy one yourself. Assembling shouldn't be an issue.
Make sure that the enclosure comes also with a gigabit ethernet interface, so that you can use it as a network drive later on.

Cheers
\Klaus

Hi Frank.

Interesting findings.

The tweaks you're mentioning I applied almost a year ago with quite some success.
We (especially Peter, Adrian, me and some others) were discussing the issues at the BD-Design forum.

Some issues to mention:

Processor-Clock:

The best sound you'll get at highest clock rate. The drawback is heat and powerconsumption.
Especially on a battery driven notebook that's not manageble.
However I found a nice compromise. I am running now 1.67GHz on a 2.16GHz Thinkpad P60.

Two solutions to overcome above:

1. a rocksolid overdimensioned powersupply,400-500W and/or
2. a fanless PC

with a notebook your options are unfortunately rather limited.


OS:

If you really want to go for a Microsoft based system, it has been proven that Windows 2000 is soundwise a much better choice over XP. It is a known fact that latencies are much lower under Windows 2000.

Vista needs in any case  to be compared to Windows 2000, instead of comparing Vista with XP.

Even though Peter is stating that he runs extrem low latencies with XX under any (Vista-!?!?) conditions, Flecko is reporting quite some audible differences between  Windows 2000 and XP.

Harddisk:

Highly recommened are professional 500GB drives. They are ten times more reliable than the cr*ppy consumer stuff.

2* 100GB in a notebook are not recommended. The 2 disks  generating a lot of heat and a lot of other unwanted effects especially in a notebook. If you go for .wav track playback -- 100GB is not sufficiant.

Any good SW-Player plays the tracks out of RAM. I doubt that RAID or IDE/SATA or anything makes a difference from
its technology perspective.
I'd rather suspect RAID generating more activity on the processor, thus it would be my less favourable solution.

That's of course different if you talk about a network based storage. 
My next invest will be most probably a 2* 500GB NAS connected to the audio-machine via GB-ethernet.

Good luck

Poor freedb tags!  I hate them too! I wrote a script that cleans up all my stuff.

It's amazing what developers have to cover to get a small piece of software up'n running!

From that perspective, one could be impressed what MicroSoft has achieved to build a decent base (close to flawlessly) on all kind
of HW and SW and configurations. ( No, No -- I am not a fan of Microsoft! Forget that!  )

Cheers
Klaus

Peter.

Lossless calculations - e.g. when adding gain to the digital signal - are almost not achievable on most of the PC platforms. Rounding errors will cause losses.
You need to calculate in 64bit mode to get a reasonable small error and then you also need to add properly dither which is not that easy.

However, coming back to the digital volume control as a related topic - adding gain by using a DSP - and looking at the whole chain I still think ( actually I know it) a preamp will cause more trouble to the signal than a 64bit engine.

Cheers
Klaus

Hi Peter.

A 44.1. sample is 0,023ms! 1/10 of it would be 0,0023ms. Do I have a problem with the math?

Regarding timer: I am running a timer at 10000Hz which is as unstable as the 1000Hz (but relatively generating less error and less latencies).

I turned all knobs in my system and anytime I reduced latency and non-linearities in whatever process the sound improved.

This behaviour has been even prooved on a TwinDac by now!!

Cheers
\Klaus

Hi Peter.

I read your remark on Latency in your post., which I tend to disagree upon, looking at my own research over the last 8 month!

Perhaps you can shed some light on the subject:

1. First of all you could tell me what kind of Latency you're talking about?

2. 1/10 of a sample means 2micro seconds right? - No buffer bigger than 2us! Amazing. What clockrate is Vista running at? The clockrate defines the IRQ intervals - right?
    If it is 1000Hz It would be 1ms. In that case you'd most probably catch XRUNS if you'd run 1/10 of a sample latency. Because as soon as another process jumps in
    you'd face 1ms or higher  break which would cause an underrun. Even in exclusive mode this wouldn't work.
   
Looking forward to your answer.

Cheers
Klaus

 

You might want to check this one out!!! We discussed it earlier!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

Cheers

Hi Peter.

Just to add:

1. From 24bit to 16 you won't get around dithering

2. If doing any conversion in the digital domain in realtime on a PC or DAC/DSP the conversion (float calculations)  ususally is done in 32/64 bit word length, which implies the necessity for dithering when going back to 24/16 anyhow.
To get best dithering results 64 bit wordlength calculations are highly recommended.

Cheers
\Klaus

Hi folks.

Just to share with you folks a little conversion I had with Linn, see below.
I was surprised how quick and open they responded.

------QUOTE ----------------

Hello Linn.

I just looked at your very interesting Master-Quality downloads
offering.
1.
I would like to know if your 24/96 tracks offered for download are 1to1
digital copies from the master-files, without dvd or cd-redbook writing
in between?
Just to make sure that these files did not catch any additional jitter
during e.g. CD production processes.

Yes they are.

2.
Are the 44.1 materials converted from the master-files?
Would be great to know which method, tool , dither asf.) you used to
convert them.

Yes they are. The masters are recorded at 88.2kz 24 bit and are then
sample rate converted down to 44.1kz 16 bit. The reason we use 88.2 as
the original recording format is that, because it is a simple multiple
of 44.1, a very simple SRC can be used and this seems to sound better.
We normally use one of the few remaining Pacific Microsonics HDCD
encoders to do both the sample rate conversion and the subsequent
dithering down to 16 bit. This seems to sound better than the standard
dithering options available, and also has the advantage that if you play
the files back on a HDCD compatible player then there is an additional
performance advantage.

------QUOTE END------

Dithering is still still an issue as you can read! Let see if e.g. ssrc does a better job.

Today I commented on the 44.1/88,2 formats as the less favourable choice
compared to 48/96 in a PC environmment for the majority of users.
Let see how they comment on this.

Cheers
\Klaus

You know my philosophy. If downsampling/upsampling than I am doing it offline. No conversion during realtime- playback.

BTW. Did you consider that you might need to add dither while converting 24/16.
You need to find the converter with the best dithering method.

Cheers.
Klaus

I am thinking to convert it by myself to 16/48. From 96 to 48 shouldn't be a big problem.
It should still be better than the detour over a redbook CD.
I've seen that certain files are available in e.g. 88.1 instead of 96.
That pretty much seems to proove that they are using the originals.

Now I need to find the best converter for doing the job.

Cheers
Klaus