"Ran out" entry in X3PB log

[Calibrator]

hey Pete,

been meaning to ask what's the significance (if any) of the "Ran out" message that appears occassionally in the X3PB log?

I think it's new following Z4-0 release.

Ta

--- snip from X3PB log --
Name attempt : Juli@ Ch34 ** Found ** ** Succeeded ! **
Filter found : \\?\esi#julia_01#5&2e82fd80&2&0001#{6994ad04-93ef-11d0-a3cc-00a0c9223196}\esi_wave3
Name attempt : Juli@ Ch1234
No ambiguous devices found.
-13
-14
-16
Set Device Buffer Size : 48  Samples of latency (Q1) : 3  (see more below for the applied KS Mode)
-29 (Start Playback)
FileBase : 44 Start at : 44 Corr : -48 FileLengthEnd : 127999932
21:02:44.3804420 First ChangeWP call
Special Mode !
31
31
31
21:11:48.6255524 Ran out.
31
31
31
21:20:52.8361584 Ran out.
31
21:22:02.2504729 Second ChangeWP call
31
31
21:27:06.5041082 Second ChangeWP call
31
21:30:07.9141443 Ran out.
31
31
31
21:36:48.1134632 Second ChangeWP call
21:36:48.1149634 Ran out.
31
31
31
21:45:52.3315701 Ran out.
-30 (EXIT)
-30a (EXIT)
-30b (EXIT)
-30c (EXIT)
-30d (EXIT)
-44a (Quit)
-44b (Quit)

[PeterSt]

Rouchele ...

This ever was an indication for myself, and it denotes the more or less special situation that when a track (part) has played, at that exact moment the buffer with samples has ran empty. This normally is quite some coincidence. But what I now see (and think of for the first time), is that in a case like yours -playing with 3 samples of latency- chance will be 1:3 to let this happen, really.

But during the writing of this, it suddenly also springs to my mind that "debug code" like this - ever made for checking stuff at buffer boundary levels and which would happen at a relative LARGE amount of samples - is now performed once per 3 samples as in your case, or anyway much more than ever thought of when the code was created. This now obviously will lead to taking out that code, that by itself almost definitely leading to again a lower possible latency.

Your upside down nose is always good for something ...
Peter

[Calibrator]

thanks Pierre

I had a feeling it may have been related to buffers but because it only popped up occasionally, and it wasn't apparent in the playback, I had forgotten about asking.

Any lowering of potential latency can't hurt.

Glad my nose has been useful again  although of late it's needed a rather large umbrella to stop from drowning!

Cheers,

Russ