XXHighEnd version 0.9d stops after one track + errors

[JohanZ]

Hi Peter,

Yesterday I thought that all problems were solved. Short after I had finished mine post on this forum, I have got some error messages only in engine#3.

Today I did a 'reinstall' of XX 0.9d, still in the Vista Business envirement. Here are mine findings:
After one track I get two error messages from Windows :

first

• "XXEngine3.exe werkt niet meer" ;

second

• "Failure, Engine#3 did not start within expected time" .

When I look in the task manager I see in the tab "tasks" XXengine3 is still there. XXHighEnd isn't there anymore. On the screen the program XXHighEnd is stil there.

After accepting the errors and via play-button the music continues.  In the active task list I can see XXengine3 and XXHighEnd......

HELP!

Regards, Johan

[PeterSt]

Hi Johan,

Not that it immediately solves your problem, but please look at this post : http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=94.msg477#msg477 and look at the whole topic as well (solutions for stopping after each track) and notice that Werner too was bothered by the hanging sound).

It would be interesting to know whether the Delay (in XX) of one second helps you too.

Just for your information : The hanging sound you were bothered with is expected to be caused by the driver (http://www.phasure.com/index.php?topic=123.0). I think that *instead* of that happening, now an unexpected situation occurs because of which XX(engine3) dies.

In any case : never always use the same CDs for testing these kind of things, because it might be caused by the CD and the way the tracks end, which often is not official.
Also, do not use offline upsampled tracks (e.g. to 48K !!) to test this because the program performing the upsampling might have written wrong header data into the file (which would be a typicle cause for this problem).

Tomorrow I will change Engine#3 so that it anticipates better on wrong header data vs tracklength, to exclude that problem to start with.

Peter


Edit : Actually, the more I think of it, the more I think you use offline to 48K upsampled tracks. Just because you are in the DDDac "community" and over at BDDesign this subject started. This would be Werner's problem too then.

[JohanZ]

Hello Peter,

Here some testresults and remarks,

........whether the Delay (in XX) of one second helps you too

In the beginning I thought that it was the solution for the problem. With the one second it sometimes continuing fore one or two tracks. And then the same errors appears. I have test it with 2,3,5 seconds on different cd's. When I switched back to a delay of 0 seconds, it stil play sometimes 2 or 3 tracks.
Another thing I have notist is that XX not memorizes de delay setting. The next time I start XX it is 0 seconds again.

........do not use offline upsampled tracks (e.g. to 48K !!) to test this because the program performing the upsampling might have written wrong header data into the file (which would be a typicle cause for this problem).

What do you mean with offline upsampling? The checkbox "UpSmp" option in XX? I'll never used it.

......you use offline to 48K upsampled tracks.........you use offline to 48K upsampled tracks. Just because you are in the DDDac "community"..........

All the testactivities are done without the most famous DDDAC1543. So I connect the headphone direct to the onboard soundcard output!

Regards, Johan

[PeterSt]

What do you mean with offline upsampling? The checkbox "UpSmp" option in XX? I'll never used it.

This was about a thread like this : http://forum.bd-design.nl/board_entry.php?id=11592#p11660, but never mind if you don't know about that and don't do it.

All the testactivities are done without the most famous DDDAC1543. So I connect the headphone direct to the onboard soundcard output!

Ah ! wait a minute ...
So here we will be having another case of "HD Audio Device" I guess ...
But I think your case is different from those "don't want to make sound" and here indeed Engine#3 will be using it in shared mode, and then at the next track it tries to exclusively use itself, can't, quits, and starts at the next track when it can again.

Okay, you can't follow this, but I can.
Anyway this is a case I can't test myself, because this is about a sounddevice not supporting Exclusive Mode (well, that is my guess), but it does allow Shared Mode because the sample rate it supports fits.
Note : which not the case at my place (laptop) because it only supports 48/96 so there's nothing else to do than give an error message (which it does -> "Format not supported", or similar).

The big (in fact huge) pitfall for everyone is, that without being able to look at the effectively output samplerate, you will never (be able to) understand why Engine#1 and #2 do make sound while #3 does not. This is because Vista just resamples to the (by the soundcard) supported samplerate (48 or 96 in my case). Engine#3 avoids just all that, but with the result it can't play.

Conclusion for your situation : This would just be a plain error in my code, and which I couldn't (and can't) test myself.

Johan, to be ahead of things a bit, before I'm going to change the program on this :
When you have sound from #3 by this means of laptop internal speakers ... can you change the volume by the Vista mixer (speaker icon in the taskbar tray) ?

Thanks,
Peter

[JohanZ]

Hi Peter,

... can you change the volume by the Vista mixer (speaker icon in the taskbar tray) ?

Yes I can!

Another note:
When I use engine#3 and select the check-box "Double" I get the following error messages. Has these error messages something to do with this?

Johan

[PeterSt]

... can you change the volume by the Vista mixer (speaker icon in the taskbar tray) ?

Yes I can!

This makes my story above true.

When I use engine#3 and select the check-box "Double" I get the following error messages. Has these error messages something to do with this?

This is slightly morte difficult;

Please accept the below as a brainstorm I don't want anybody to understand except myself, possibly informative afterall for those with unexplainable errors or things happening. Remember, XXHighEnd is the first player that's confronted with this phenomenon of Exclusive mode versus (!!) Shared Mode, so there's really no experience from anyone "we" could fall back to.

The first message indicates that that it is impossible to avoid reampling. Mind you, in the context of your problem.
However, where #1 and #2 in this same resulting situation ALWAYS will make something of it, because Vista just does, the second message from #3 tells that what Vista makes from it, just doesn't match what I desire it to do.

However, this is the result of "elements" that operate indepentently from eachother, both messages being true, but possibly not giving you the desired situation. Thus : the sole fact that your soundcard does not allow Exclusive Mode (WHICH CAUSES RESAMPLING BECAUSE OF THAT) does not say that you don't want it to play sound. Now, this other element, obviously anticipating on bit perfect playback where #3 was made for, just rejects the output sample rate (created by Vista) just because it can't resample to this samplerate itself. So what it sees is : In 44K1 -> Possibly out 48 --> error because "I" can't do that.

The whole point here is that in the situation the soundcard can't be gotten exclusively, Vista takes care of the resampling.

Read the last oine again. There I say exactly the same as before, but from another angle. Before I said : when the soundcard can't be gotten exclusively, Vista *will* resample. Where this one sounds negative, the before one is positive.

It is the positive thing #3 could anticipate upon BUT BUT BUT, I don't think I will ever know whether Vista really can make something from it.
Thus the literal situation which will happen in the program is : I want 44K1, Vista tells that's not supported, and then the program must assume something else is (might it be 22K050 or 96K whatever). All is out of the scope of the program as soon as shared mode is in order.

Because now this is getting related to a "structured breakdown" of the sounddevice in order to present the proper messages and making the good decisions, I will not be able to do this in between the lines and without carefully thinking and testing. IOW : This won't happen today.


Johan, can I assume that this won't be a problem for you since you actually should use (or just use) your DDDac ?

[JohanZ]

Hi Peter,

........slightly morte difficult......

......wow....???!!!!?????!!????

I think for the mean time, I prefer a Dutch 'speaking' forum!

Johan, can I assume that this won't be a problem for you since you actually should use (or just use) your DDDac ?

Yes indeed I only want to use the NOS DDDAC1543. What do I need to be Disabled in mine PC to get bit perfect and an errorless XX? I still want to use the SPDIF output! But I also have a USB input on mine DDDAC!

Regards, Johan

[PeterSt]

You don't need to do anything. Just use Engine#3 and define the USB Audio Device as Primary Device (so it lists as the first available device).

If it is not clear, please say so !

[JohanZ]

Hi Peter,

this won't be a problem for you since you actually should use (or just use) your DDDac

Normaly a DDDAC has only a SPDIF input. What do I change /or disable on mine PC to use this SPDIF input?

....define the USB Audio Device as Primary Device .........so it lists as the first available device

by selecting another output in XXHighEnd!?

Johan

[PeterSt]

In either case you could just disable all the other devices (speaker icon in the tackbar tray) until the one you want is left. The only one there is always the Primary Device.

About your SPDIF input ... I can't tell in advance what happens. Assuming your onboard soundcard has digital out, you could use that (and then try again wheter you can change the volume -> Yes is NOT good).
But in your case, I think, I would prefer the USB connection. And then it shouldn't be a problem.