100% processor-load was all right all the time....Just changed the refresh rate of my graph to see this 

By the way: using Straight Contiguous Memory Mode requires me a Windows reboot, on each first use of XX. Is this normal?

As said, any program that needs a full load of the processor will work, up to 100% load.....inclusive turbo-boost (quad-core, 2,8 Ghz). Really a fast processor. Only XXHighend won't do that 100% peaks, if needed, apparently. But the most important is it works, without those glitches, and I'm happy again!

Please tell me what to do to make it peak to 100%. I set in Processor Powermanagement the min-max processor state both to 100%....Always the full clockspeed (and turbo when necessarily).

Straight Contiguous Memory Mode is on now, will test it later.

My disc subsystem is connected by high-speed usb 3, also the processor speed is unlimited. The processor don't need to reach 100%, peak-loads are simply not high enough for the i7 processor, that's what I assume. My previous laptop reached 100% indeed, but that was a dual core with much less specs.

I keep on trying with several settings (all attended). The problem is only there with high resolution playback, so I test it with these (flac) files, native input = 96 Khz. My output-sample rate is 96 Khz, the dac's standard (usb).

The good news is that I found glitch free settings on my system:

- Proc. Core App. Scheme = 2
- PlayerPrio = Normal
- ThreadPrio = RealTime
- Clock Res. - nothing
- SFS setting = 36

The setting "PlayerPrio" set it to Normal instead of Realtime is crucial to give glitch free playback, definitely. Switched several times, glitches (dis)appears again.
But after reboot, and try this again, both settings (normal/realtime) played glitch free (??). Also, set proc. scheme app. to scheme 2 gives better dividing over 4 cores, maybe this helps too (see graphs). But today I saw another graph, more divided  to all cores (with same No app. setting).

So everything seems to be solved for now. Test results gives not always the same results, so sometimes it's hard to conclude the real cause of the problem. But generally, it's clear where it came from now: combination of settings as describes above.

Ehm....no, it actually isn't playing well, as simple that, still GLITCHES (better: GAPS) at the end of tracks, especially with high-res recordings. A mystery to me, why on this machine and not to my others.

As said, only unattended solves this.

My laptop (Acer 5750G/Core i7 2670QM) isn't running anything more then my own W7 (not the factory-Premium), lightweight antivirus and up-to-date drivers and so on. Energy-savings are off, ssd inside (boot les than 15 sec), wifi standard off (use of LAN-cable). Playing often without supply connected. So mine is really "designed" to run XX...

On-par machine? What's that? And what kind of "sh*t" do you mean?  For me a laptop is a full Personal Computer with (almost) identical specs these days, any program must run on it, I think so. Also XXHighend and all his possibilities and tweaks. What makes a laptop different? Mobo, processor, memory, harddisk,....

Unattended playing solves the glitch-issue, indeed. Plus a better sound quality (minimize OS won't work since XX hangs while trying to restart). First I heard one or more glitches (better: GAP's!) on the end of any track, even in the very beginning of next track. In any situation I closed Aida64 (monitoringprogram on background), or I have constantly small glitches (actually strange, this wasn't on my previous laptop). But if I'm doing as describe, iIt's now free of glitches. Seems that XX had to be familiar with my new laptop??! It IS really an (error) sensitive program...sorry to say that....but sensitive is what you need in music, isn't it  And that's worth it!

Thanks for your support.

It seems, so far I noticed right now, that the monitor Aida64 one of the cause of the problem was, so speaking in terms of resources, it influences the sound apparently (was not on my old laptop).

Nevertheless, it gives still glitches, only just before the end of the track (the moment loading the next track in the background, isn’t it?) with flac and wave, and ONLY with high def. sound (24/96 in my situation). So what’s up that makes it, it wouldn’t be the specs of the machine…only 3-4% processor usage during playback. Any idea?

Unfortunately nothing worked , minimized os wont't even restart automatically (hangs with XX) en manually restart after that result in incorrect min. os (not looks like, although XX says it IS min. os, in the past this function worked twice or somewhat).

But playing glitchfree, cant't see the reason what's the matter now, I tried so far as I know everything. Also spdif isn't glitchfree, although a little les. Also, very often tracks will not continue (says: "end of track")

I hope anybody can give me a hint to solve these things.

Hi Peter,

Unfortunately nothing helped against glitches...tried everything you suggest. Installation (this was all right) on C, (also the XX-Data folder). For testing, I copied one music file direct to the ssd, but the same problem. So usb-speed seems no issue. After activating (yes, it wasn't yet, sorry!) I could change Appointment settings, but there is no difference, with unattended playing also not. Changed splitfile to lower settings, no result (mem. organisation both trying to mixed or mixed contiguous). And of course the Q1-setting (from 6 tot 14), no result. It's strange, is'nt it. Just can't get it why the glitches appears (also during playback but most on the end).

Only difference is that the storage is connected via usb 2 in stead of e-sata (no e-sata on my laptop!). So may be have to use usb-3? (usb 2 would be quick enough?) OS is same (W7 Ultimate etc) and I used my laptop-code you gave me in the past (may be not correct activated? )

Hi Peter,

Since I have a new laptop (Intel core i7) I hear glitches as well, at the end of each track. As well, it says "End of track" again....sometimes, sometimes not (nothing of these problems on my old laptop with same settings). New: can't set Processor Core App. Scheme (says "Undermol"). Could that be the reason?