3.4 reports, queries and bugs

[Ian @ un4seen]

That's strange, I can't reproduce that here. What Windows version are you using?

Windows 98 SE.

Ah, I see what's happened. I updated to the latest Windows SDKs recently, and unless told otherwise, that'll use the latest function/structure definitions. It's now been told

   www.un4seen.com/stuff/xmp-midi.dll

Running Windows 98 SE, the Task Manager doesn't report CPU usage, I'll have to run the "resource meter" and get back to you on that one.

You can use Wintop on Win98, available here...

http://www.microsoft.com/windows95/downloads/contents/WUToys/W95KernelToy/Default.asp

Btw, how slow is sloooooooow?

Extremely choppy...

No, I meant how slow is the system, eg. CPU?

That is indeed true... The 'official' Japanese supporting fonts which come with the OS are 'MS Gothic', 'MS Mincho', 'MS PGothic', 'MS PMincho' and 'MS UI Gothic' (sometimes they are listed with an @ like '@MS PGothic'). There is an optional huge font named 'Arial Unicode MS' available (shipped with some MS products and sold online, filename ARIALUNI.TTF) - but being named different it doesn't help being available in XMPlay. The Gothic and Mincho fonts are only installed in Win2k when Japanese is enabled in the locale settings.

Japanese/etc characters show up fine on WinXP, even without the ARIALUNI.TTF font. I guess WinXP is mapping the missing characters to another font, while Win2k unfortunately isn't. Maybe there's some way to make it do so?

I don't know which font is being used by the iXMPlay - but I'm guessing its MS PGothic whose ASCII chars looks a lot like Arial.
So for me I'd select 'MS PGothic' as a font for the skin if I had the option - or I would edit the skin myself if they werent in these kinda encrypted binary formats.

The source files for a lot of the skins are available at the support site, and can be "installed" by putting them in a sub-directory of XMPlay. You can change the fonts that are used in the skinconfig.txt file. iXMPlay uses the "Lucida Sans Unicode" font, so I guess you could change them to that.

I have replaced the .exe file with the "stuff" ;exe fioe, and removed the xmp-ra.dll, but it keeos crashing while scanning.
her eit s the error log

Unfortunately, that just gives version info. To get some more useful info, please upload your drwtsn32.log file, which you should find here...

C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Microsoft\Dr Watson\

[kragg]

the dr watson file is big (more than 1mega).
Should i send everything ? It might content non-xmplay-related infos.

[Ian @ un4seen]

If you know where to chop it, you could do so. But otherwise it'd probably be better to just upload the whole thing. You can upload it here...

   ftp.un4seen.com/incoming/

[kragg]

ok. done.

[Pike84]

Ok, now XMPlay doesn't crash, but are there any chances of getting the visualization to actually work? It still closes after a second or so...

Are you talking about The Rabbit Hole visual? It works fine to me, both standalone and in Rappa.

Yes, I meant The Rabbit Hole. I'm currently using 1152 x 864 screen resolution without the restrict vis rendering option.

[Rich Nagel]

Ah, I see what's happened. I updated to the latest Windows SDKs recently, and unless told otherwise, that'll use the latest function/structure definitions. It's now been told www.un4seen.com/stuff/xmp-midi.dll

Many thanks, I'll give it a try ASAP -:)

You can use Wintop on Win98, available here... http://www.microsoft.com/windows95/downloads/contents/WUToys/W95KernelToy/Default.asp

Thanks for the heads-up, (per above) I'll give it a try ASAP -:)

(edit) Uh... that page says "System Requirements: Microsoft Windows 95. NOTE: This download is not intended for use on computers running Microsoft® Windows® 98." (?). Nevertheless, the Windows 98 "Resource Meter" will (should) be able to report the CPU usage of any given program or process, correct?

No, I meant how slow is the system, eg. CPU?

Hehe, (now) understood <LOL>! One is an AMD500 and the other is a P233MMX (in other words, slow... <G>).

[Cris]

Yes, I meant The Rabbit Hole. I'm currently using 1152 x 864 screen resolution without the restrict vis rendering option.

About the test I was talking a few posts before... I finished a part of it, and it seems that the Rabbit Hole visual is pretty sensible about what resolution you use. On the other hand, Rabbit Hole TEST 1.1 had no problems whatsoever...yet.

So you could try using Rabbit Hole TEST 1.1 instead of Rabbit Hole.

[Ian @ un4seen]

You can use Wintop on Win98, available here... http://www.microsoft.com/windows95/downloads/contents/WUToys/W95KernelToy/Default.asp

Thanks for the heads-up, (per above) I'll give it a try ASAP -:)

(edit) Uh... that page says "System Requirements: Microsoft Windows 95. NOTE: This download is not intended for use on computers running Microsoft® Windows® 98."

You can ignore that. Some of the other stuff included might not work on Win98, but WinTop does.

Hehe, (now) understood <LOL>! One is an AMD500 and the other is a P233MMX (in other words, slow... <G>).

Blimey!

[Rich Nagel]

You can ignore that. Some of the other stuff included might not work on Win98, but WinTop does.

A-OK, thanks for the info -:)

Blimey!

Hehe, I didn't even mention my still-operational 486DX-100 <LOL>, as it only has Windows 3.11 installed on it <G> -:)

[PVTele]

Hehe, I didn't even mention my still-operational 486DX-100 <LOL>, as it only has Windows 3.11 installed on it <G> -:)

Arrgh! Win 3.1 is one of those bad memories I try to keep repressed 

[ripieces]

thank you for 3.4 <3 fullscreenvis and the new skins (except the new default one)

[yagood]

Probably a bug - when I use "Add directory" in the Playlist window and select certain directory, files from that directory are being added two times to the playlist, so it looks like this (instead of display names I paste paths below):

001 E:\Mp3\!soundtrack\Batman Begins [2005-06-14]\01. Vespertilio.flac
002 ...
.
.
.
012 ... (last file from this directory) ...
013 E:\Mp3\!soundtrack\Batman Begins [2005-06-14]\01 Vespertilio.flac
.
. (files from that directory, but without "." after track number in the path - marked as dead)
.

For some reason it only happens in this particular directory, I can't reproduce it with other directories so far. It worked fine with 3.3, not sure about 3.4 betas.

OK, now I know more about this problem - there are playlists in some directories that contain references to (now) dead tracks - when I tag my files, I also use rename option in the tagger and sometimes forget to delete old playlist file from the directory and files from that playlist become "dead" for XMPlay when I use "Add Directory" option. But still, I have "Ignore playlists & shortcuts" option enabled and these playlists are added to XMPlay anyway, this didn't happen in previous versions.

[Jace]

Yeah, I had that happening too, when the box was checked. Tried to remove plugins in case one of them is grabbing them along?

[Ian @ un4seen]

Ah yes, the "ignore playlists" option wasn't working properly (only had effect in sub-directories). It should be sorted now...

   www.un4seen.com/stuff/xmplay.exe

Btw, regarding the earlier question of playlists in monitored directories, they will now be added to the library if the "Don't preprocess playlists" option is enabled.

[Brian]

Btw, regarding the earlier question of playlists in monitored directories, they will now be added to the library if the "Don't preprocess playlists" option is enabled.

Great stuff, and it works a treat - thanks very much indeed.

[Pike84]

Yes, I meant The Rabbit Hole. I'm currently using 1152 x 864 screen resolution without the restrict vis rendering option.

About the test I was talking a few posts before... I finished a part of it, and it seems that the Rabbit Hole visual is pretty sensible about what resolution you use. On the other hand, Rabbit Hole TEST 1.1 had no problems whatsoever...yet.

So you could try using Rabbit Hole TEST 1.1 instead of Rabbit Hole.

Thanks! The Rabbit Hole 1.1 seems to work fine .

[legumo]

i've never used Plugins or anything, always downloaded XMPLAY, all i ever setup in it is setting 16bit to 24bit playback, nothing else, the equalizer is always turned off i prefer music without it.

im completely unimpressed with XMPLAY 3.4 it sounds totally flat compared to 3.3, there's a lack of articulation be it from the bass or general sound in the mp3 played.

playing with 3.3 again everything sound perfect.

3.3 and 3.4 each are in different directories so it cant be an old option messing it up.

deleted the xmplay 3.4 and hoping you take a look at the audio playback cause something is definetely not right.

i got an AUDIGY 2 with latest drivers.

even Winamp and WMP sound better than 3.4

im kinda of an audiophile and can pick even the minimum change in my music as its played,
i did notice in 3.4 some additional audio in the song U2 - With Or Without you which i never heard
before with 3.3, but the music is all drowned and lacking. that song gives me emotions every time
i heard it....and now i feel nothing.
playing it with 3.3 or winamp and it sounds good again and well done.

im disappointed.

hope this get fixed.

[Knurek]

i got an AUDIGY 2 with latest drivers.
im kinda of an audiophile and can pick even the minimum change in my music as its played,

Objection!
The witness is providing contradicting statements!

[Auren]

Ian, can you add a feature to omit the extension from the file that is being encoded (both in  the dialogue window when it is prompted to name the encoded file and when it is encoded automatically using "Auto-filename" or "Source" options)?

[Dotpitch]

im completely unimpressed with XMPLAY 3.4 it sounds totally flat compared to 3.3, there's a lack of articulation be it from the bass or general sound in the mp3 played. ...
im kinda of an audiophile and can pick even the minimum change in my music as its played, i did notice in 3.4 some additional audio in the song U2 - With Or Without you which i never heard before with 3.3. ... playing it with 3.3 or winamp and it sounds good again and well done.
im disappointed. hope this get fixed.

So, generally, you're claiming somewhere in the process from MP3 to output something tiny changed. Assuming you have exactly the same settings in both XMPlay versions (sample rate, dither, noise shaping etc.) and no DSP (reverb, equalizer etc.), would you  be willing to help Ian find out what changed? For example, record the song playing in 3.3 and in 3.4, and compare the files with a wave editor.

[amit]

A small thing :

After clicking the buffer slider in output options allow delicate changes of the slider by using keyboard's left and right buttons similar to amplification slider.

Thanks.

[deus-ex]

i got an AUDIGY 2 with latest drivers.
im kinda of an audiophile and can pick even the minimum change in my music as its played,

Objection!
The witness is providing contradicting statements!

 

That's why i sold my Audigy back then. XiFi is a complete different story, though.

[legumo]

im completely unimpressed with XMPLAY 3.4 it sounds totally flat compared to 3.3, there's a lack of articulation be it from the bass or general sound in the mp3 played. ...
im kinda of an audiophile and can pick even the minimum change in my music as its played, i did notice in 3.4 some additional audio in the song U2 - With Or Without you which i never heard before with 3.3. ... playing it with 3.3 or winamp and it sounds good again and well done.
im disappointed. hope this get fixed.

So, generally, you're claiming somewhere in the process from MP3 to output something tiny changed. Assuming you have exactly the same settings in both XMPlay versions (sample rate, dither, noise shaping etc.) and no DSP (reverb, equalizer etc.), would you  be willing to help Ian find out what changed? For example, record the song playing in 3.3 and in 3.4, and compare the files with a wave editor.

sure why not.

there is definetely something different in the sound, i made sure in both players all settings are identical, 48khz / stereo/ 24 bit , i dont use the DSP, nor equalizer (disabled), dither/noiseshape is disabled, sampling rate force is disabled too.

the fact that the music sound good in 3.3 xmplay, windows media player 10 means something is definetly changed in 3.4, could be the new DOWNMIX options or some tweak that was made?

do i record the audio as it is playing?  in the audigy 2 i set WHAT YOU HEAR ....right?

@DEUS-EX : lol gimme a break it's not the card, it's the player. im not going to buy a new card to
please the software 
sure the X-FI will always sound a lot better, but that doesnt mean the Audigy 2 is the problem with 3.4 xmplay. something was changed for sure during the coding or while adding some feature.

im not saying im the most professional audiophile in the world, but i know how my music sounds on my setup, that's why i have chosen XMPLAY and ive been a FOOBAR user for a long time and was happy with the 24bit it provided until i heard my mp3 on XMPLAY and noticed the difference.

believe it or not, 3.3 sounds better than 3.2 and better than 3.4 people who want just music to be played wont really notice these small differences.

i dunno how to explain it....the sound is a bit FLAT, as if the music is lost inside the speakers rather than being infront of you.

[Knurek]

believe it or not, 3.3 sounds better than 3.2 and better than 3.4 people who want just music to be played wont really notice these small differences.

The internal equalizer was changed in 3.4, right? More bands and all that crud. Maybe that's the problem?

[Jace]

Shouldn't make a difference if there's a 5-band eq disabled or a 9-band eq disabled?