XXHighEnd

I`m using 09y-4, now i will try the volum in it for the first time.

But it will not work, this message is coming up :  outofmemoryexception


What is wrong?


Tore, Norway

The volum is red?  I have 104db sensitive loadspeakers and the signal from the dac is going direct to the poweramp, no preamp.

Tore

Hey Tore,

If your volume is "red", it will mean that you are using too much digital attenuation - hence loose too many bits for a proper resolution (mind you, on your 16bit DAC). Of course this is defined by me, and if you think it's allright, just go ahead. Btw, the latest versions don't have a "red volume" anymore, but the workout is the same.

The Out of memory can be because you are now using an additional part of the software, hence you might just go over the limit now, while before it was ok. Lower your Split File Size a little, and it will be allright again.
Btw, in the last version (0.9z-3) there won't be a difference regarding the used memory between do and do not use the digital volume.

If this doesn't help you, let me know, ok ?
Peter

sorry, i don`t understand. Can i use the volume with my 16bit dac?

What can i do?

I have tried 0.9z-3 and i get this messages :  first startup of XXHighEnd gives me a "Does not work anymore", with internal message "System.InvalidOperationException".

Just the same as with 0.9z-2.

I have tried the volume with 0.9z-2 and 0.9z-3 too , and i get now sound

Tore

Can you please differentiate between any two problems ? I mean, before you had 1 real problem, and now I'm lost in them.

Please do NOT use the volume, and open another topic for whatever other problem you have then. Ok ?

If that problem is out of the way, we can continue on the volume.

But you can use the volume on a 16 bit DAC allright. NOT if you like to mix problems. I can't deal with that.
Haha.

Peter

Haha, not quite fair from me since your topic is about Out of memory. But, for now keep 0.9z-2/3 out and keep in mind that I never suggested that those versions would work better on this matter. Only the "red" does not show anymore there.

Now,


did you do this ?
Or set it to 12 - and when it then works, work your way up (to the higher levels).

Regards,
Peter


PS: A 16 bit DAC has 16 bits only. At each 6 dB you digitally attenuate you effectively throw out one bit. The red area is there when you are at (IIRC) -48dB or 8 bits. That's 8 bits left. You wouldn't want an 8bit DAC, right ? But *if* you want, just go ahead (but it really can't sound good anymore).

Thanks, now i can use the volume on 0.9y-4

Tore

When i turn the volum up when playing music i get the message "OutOfMemoryException"

The Split File Size is set to 12.

When the music is stopped i can use the volume without problems

Tore

Aha !  Now we are getting somewhere. But also : now it will be difficult for me because of the older version.

Ok, my suggestion : can you survice this (not being able to change the volume during playback) until we got you up and running with 0.9z-3 ?
Btw, I'm fairly sure the problem won't be in there (no guarantee though ! :))

Peter

i use 0.9z-3 and volume is OK.


Tore

Hello Peter,

I am getting "Out of memory Exception" on Z-3 version, when trying to play a track which is 14 minutes long, I am not using any kind of upsampling, fx = 1x (16bit/44.1 kHz), volume is not used (0.0), SFS is 220kB. System shows 10GB memory used (8GB is ramdisk, 2 is system and services), so 6 GB is free. Total physical memory is 16GB. Setting in INI is "11". I checked that this particular wave file has size of 144kBytes on my ramdisk.

I lowered SFS to 150kB, and the track plays well, but do not understand why the problem occures in this situation ?
XXHE being 32bit application can allocate as much memeory as needed to play this track.

Jarek

Hi Jarek,

I have been thinking this over, but I have no conclusions. Even I with my total available memory of 2GB (3GB - 1GB RAMDisk) can utilize an SFS of 260 (notice though that my 8x upsampling and (to) 32 bits won't differ for memory useage; in my case though the length fitting in memory will be 16 times smaller than in your case.

The only thing I can say is that the memory needed will be contiguous (one large part without interruptions) so maybe there you system doesn't allow it.

But I will try with 16/44.1 as well; maybe it matters ... (can't do that right now because my system is down for a while).

Peter

Peter,

Thank you for the "dont play" option! and the Alt-P attended. Z-3 brings another big step sound wise. Excellent  :yahoo:

However...
migrating from Z-2 with 1000 SFS to Z-3, I am confronted with this OutofMemory Exception too, seemingly with anything much over 50, even with SFS.ini of 00. The knock-on effects are having to raise buffer size from 32 to 128 to avoid buffer errors.

It would be nice to be able to get this SFS limit raised back up to 1000, so as to minimize unnecessary processes when playing. Is this something I can configure? From what Jarek reports on 16Gb, seems like more RAM aint the answer?

Steve

[Edit] It occurs to me that the knock on effect I mentioned may be due to other factors in Z-3?

Do you have you virtual memory On ?

If yes, can you - with an SFS setting just working (so a little higher and you have the Out of memory) - show me a picture of the "Performance" TaskManager screen ? (that's the one with the CPU graph on it).

Thanks,
Peter


PS: Counts also for Jarek. :)

Virtual memory 8Gb
SFS= 218 ok. 219 exception

Peter,

Virual memory = 16MB only.
Physical memory = 16GB

SFS=220 (first screen shot)
SFS=220 (second, after closing OUT OF MEMORY screen)
SFS=150 (third screen)

Jarek

At least this one I can explain now ...

In 0.9z-2 there was a limit on the "first" allocation of memory, and this was (in SFS terms) 120. Your 1000 was appreciated, but lateron and only when the track length required it. Not so anymore (not even with SFS.ini = 00). So if you now ask for 1000, it will do that regardless, unless your system can't (which means Out of memory). Now, for 1000 it never will, because one thread can allocate 2000 only while the 1000 will grow into 3x 1500 and 1x 1000 = 5500. Way too much.

My case (SFS = 260) : 3 x 390 + 1x 260 = that 1.4GB I indicated earlier (or in a topic elsewhere, probably the "SFS Solved" topic.

This also implies that max SFS would be something like near 400, because of the 3x 600 + 1x400 = 2200 = just too much.

So what I would suggest now, is that nothing changed but the immediate allocation of the memory per above "formula", and/but your systems won't allow for this 2GB somehow (and it never did !).

Before I continue, Jarek, can you increase your Virtual Memory (Page Size) to a couple of GB and tell me whether it makes a difference ?
Or otherwise, may it be so that you too have that limit of 218 ?
(3x 327 + 1x 218 = 1199 -> ??)

Now, maybe it is so that this is somehow a 64bit quirk/limit; Can anyone with a 64bit OS confirm to use more than 220 for SFS (in 0.9z-3 of course) ?

Lastly for Goon-Heaven, your Virtual Memory of 8GB ... you do have 8GB space left on your OS disk, right ?

:scratching:

Just tried as requested and the boundary on my system is between 247 & 248 MB. At a setting of 247 the album I had queued started playing fine. At 248 or above the OutOfMemoryException message came up just after GUI dissappeared.

I tried it with 2 different albums.

I've been using a value of about 60 to 75 till now so haven't noticed this error until mentioned.

Hope that helps.

Cheers,

Russ

Thanks for the explanation - I seemed to have missed that 2Gb thread memory limit in the "SFS Solved/Hey can we get Peter to write a :censored:RAMdisk player/device driver:censored:" thread. Where does that limit come from? .NET?

My OS disk is down to its last 46Gb.

Changing to scheme1 has enabled me to get buffer size back to where it was.
 

Peter,

I checked SFS=200 and it is too much, the same 180. When 160 it is OK.
Now I lowered ramdisk size from 8GB to 6GB.

With the result of ?

(sorry, but I expected some conclusion out of that :))

Nah, that's from very long ago. But anyway, that is not what seems to bug you both.
Edit : The limit comes from being a 32 bit application (which is on purpose thus far).

Russ, thanks. So, no 64bit quirk either eh ...

I'm really puzzled.

Btw, below is my screenshot, this time from a 16/44.1 not upsampled (now playing) and an SFS of 260. Memory is 3GB, RAMDisk is 1GB (SFS.ini = 2.1).
Maybe someone else sees the secret ?

Jarek, hello-oo ?
:)