Skip to main content
Topic: Is this correct? (Read 7427 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Is this correct?

Max


Min



It this correct? because some people say it was 1 or 0.....but I get 2 to 5 on CPU usage.........

is this correct?
I am just a normal person trying to live a normal life.

Is this correct?

Reply #1
Quote
[snip] some people say it was 1 or 0.....but I get 2 to 5 on CPU usage.........

is this correct?

That obviously depends oh-so-very-much on your system.
Since you don't tell us the specs of your computer, it's a bit hard to say anything...

EDIT: Not that I would care too much if my audioplayer used 5% CPU time... I'm just happy if it works well ;-)

Is this correct?

Reply #2
I wouldn't care even if my audio player used 25% of my CPU,
but played great (the case of Winamp2 with SSRC HQ).
With SSRC Fast it took 10%.

foobar is better, it's HQ SSRC mode takes only about 0.5% of cpu more.
and usually uses here about 0-1%
I've changed only because of myself.
Remember, when you quote me, you're quoting AstralStorm.
(read: this account is dead)

Is this correct?

Reply #3
Quote
foobar is better, it's HQ SSRC mode takes only about 0.5% of cpu more.
and usually uses here about 0-1%

How is your cpu-load with the equalizer turned on ?

My cpu spends about 8-10% on that (P4@2GHz). If i use the super_eq plugin for/with winamp the load is much lower (no cpu-load as far i can see in task manager).

Is this correct?

Reply #4
My Foobar 2k runs at 0% cpu load when playing any kind of media. The only time I got it to show a cpu load was when I was playing and draging around the window wildly all over my desktop. It got to 2% at that time

Is this correct?

Reply #5
I noticed something about WA 2 and foobar2000, in that case they act identically. Usually cpu usage on my Celeron 450 when playing is between 0 and 1%, but when particular programs are running in the same time (just running, not using any cpu time), foobar2000 cpu usage jumps to 8 - 10%. Right now I have one such app - Watznew. In the past the old Opera versions did the same, but not anymore.

Exiting that application don't help, exiting application and restarting foobar2000 or WA helps.

So, may be you encountered the same behaviour.

Is this correct?

Reply #6
foobar takes about 16-20% of cpu on my p2  400 winamp with enhancer takes about 26% cpu  in sb live  5.1 winxp sp1.rfunny cause on a yamaha sound card both of them took about 4% wonder y???

Is this correct?

Reply #7
Somehow it will happen when other applications are also running.
In my case, Kazaalite after I pause watching an unfinish downloads movie. Suddenly, everything goes into a crawl. Close everything works, but after reloading foobar2000, and the cpu usage starts going up.
I am just a normal person trying to live a normal life.

Is this correct?

Reply #8
Yeah, I have the same strange thing happening on my Celeron 566 (WinXP SP1) - the CPU usage for foobar goes to around 8-12% (as shown in Task Manager) when other programs are open, but shows 0-1% when foobar is started on it's own, playing the same file (.mpc) when Windows is first started. Winamp doesn't do this...
Also, the SuperEQ seems to use up a massive amount of CPU time - I get over 20% CPU usage when it's enabled. Won't use it because of that - a lot of you may be wondering why I'm still using a C566 at all any more! :-)

Hope this can be sorted out, if it is a bug of some sort, in upcoming releases...

Richard

PS: despite what I said above, I love fb2k. A few more configuration items for output settings would be nice, and control buttons etc... then I'll be using it as my main player instead of WA2. Will still keep that around so I can use the AdaptX plugin for my DirectX processors, and I also need it's diskwriting output to burn .mpc's to CD

Is this correct?

Reply #9
multiple outputs are planned, there are more important things i want to get done first (ahem, there's autoreplaygain in the build i'm running).
i am afraid that diskwriting won't happen, everything is force-upsampled to 32bit float, lamers would complain that converting lossless format doesn't give bit-identical results; i really don't understand people who want to use their primary media player for format conversions.

 

Is this correct?

Reply #10
if you already have a playlist open that you like and want to transfer that to CD there's nothing quite like being able to simply change the output to disk writing and hitting go again.  What it comes down to is not having to mess with several different programs because one will do it.  My question would be why would you upsample everything?

Is this correct?

Reply #11
upsampling everything to floating point is actually a good idea for DSPs. many of them tend to operate in floating point (so many wa2 dsps upsample everything and then convert back - for example DFX - not a good thing if you have several dsps enabled). also this saves dsps from understanding several formats (again, most of wa2 dsps only operate on 16bit input).

Is this correct?

Reply #12
ok, I thought foobar was a player, not a dsp

Is this correct?

Reply #13
Quote
ok, I thought foobar was a player, not a dsp

It is a player, it's just not a decoder

Is this correct?

Reply #14
Quote
What it comes down to is not having to mess with several different programs because one will do it.

Hrmm.. I think if this is the philosophy you're after, then programs like foobar probably aren't for you.  I think foobar is more in line with the philosophy of doing 1 thing (playing audio files), but doing that really well.  Being minimalist by nature pretty much requires this approach.  I think if you're looking for an all-in-one type program, then something like winamp or any of the other various jukebox type programs out there will be better suited.

Is this correct?

Reply #15
Quote
if you already have a playlist open that you like and want to transfer that to CD there's nothing quite like being able to simply change the output to disk writing and hitting go again.  What it comes down to is not having to mess with several different programs because one will do it.

well, you want a shitty player, a shitty converter and a shitty CD ripper in one ? go use winamp then.

Is this correct?

Reply #16
Quote
Quote
if you already have a playlist open that you like and want to transfer that to CD there's nothing quite like being able to simply change the output to disk writing and hitting go again.  What it comes down to is not having to mess with several different programs because one will do it.

well, you want a shitty player, a shitty converter and a shitty CD ripper in one ? go use winamp then.

you're already doing everything needed, the only difference is the output gets piped to the disk instead of the soundcard.  How you perceive this as some gigantic difference is beyond me.  How you perceive comments such as this as disrespect for your fine player is beyond me.  Why so defensive? sheesh

Is this correct?

Reply #17
i simply don't understand people who want to do everything with one program. the way fb2k processes data is designed for playback, not for converting; writing output to eg. "cd quality" 16bit wavs will require decoded data (32bit) to be downsampled and dithered; performing this multiple times on the same data will result in noticeable distortion. or at least bring thousands of kiddies screaming that results aren't bit-identical.
perhaps "disk writer" feature would be useful for one-time conversion (eg. for burning an audio CD), as long as people are aware of what's going on when they use it.

Is this correct?

Reply #18
Kiddies don't use foobar2000, it's too complicated/good for them
I've changed only because of myself.
Remember, when you quote me, you're quoting AstralStorm.
(read: this account is dead)

Is this correct?

Reply #19
Quote
i simply don't understand people who want to do everything with one program. the way fb2k processes data is designed for playback, not for converting; writing output to eg. "cd quality" 16bit wavs will require decoded data (32bit) to be downsampled and dithered; performing this multiple times on the same data will result in noticeable distortion. or at least bring thousands of kiddies screaming that results aren't bit-identical.
perhaps "disk writer" feature would be useful for one-time conversion (eg. for burning an audio CD), as long as people are aware of what's going on when they use it.

who said anything about converting?  Seems to be the obvious reason for wanting disk writing is for burning a cd of a playlist.  I don't get why you mention having to downsample and dither from the 32bit data, since I know you don't have a 32bit soundcard.  As I said before, you're already doing *everything* that needs to be done except for piping the data to disk rather than the soundcard, so I don't know why you've got your underoos in a bunch over something so simple to implement.  Shouting "screw you, you just don't get it, you can't have a good product if it does more than one thing, moron!!" over and over and over is not...blah, screw it, you're just gonna continue on about your rude way anyways.

Is this correct?

Reply #20
first, nobody calls you a moron here. that's a problem with the way you perceive things. apparently you didn't understand any of my replies, that's yet another problem on your end. you should learn that such attitude isn't the best way to get your feature ideas implemented.
locking.

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019