Quote:
Quote:
Beta 34 took care of the GUI / S-Protection issue... You might take a further look at what you did, if you're curious as to what was going on...
I only reduced the number of processing steps - everything is still there, just a bit less often.......
Well, the increase now is within a few percent, and the issue I mentioned about GOM Player has been taken care of...
Quote:
Quote:
I don't think there was ever an official conclusion to the thread where we were talking about the Intel compiler and whether or not it was penalizing AMD processors...but I don't really have a need for the declipper, at least not right now, so I'm not concerned about it.
No, but it at least seemed a lot like the AMD's were running at much slower speeds than expected. Anyway, the declipper is an extra feature, I always try to keep existing features at or below the CPU load of previous versions (even if there are improvements), which isn't always possible. But new features - especially features that have (depending on the input material!) such a big impact on the audio can of course be more CPU intensive.
Yes, but the CPU usage kept increasing over time, much more than I felt that there was value being added. That's why I was asking about newer features yet to come, like the Dynamics Booster, and how much estimated CPU usage it would add, because I felt it was already at the maximum level that I could really accept for the value being added to the product. Beta 34 returns the usage back to approximately where it was with 6.10, so that seems to be an increase that is worth the added value (not including the declipper).
Quote:
Quote:
I don't know how many Pentium 4 / Athlon64 systems you may have running your software, but my system is pretty much the fastest of that single-core era, as I'm running overclocked and with DDR-500 memory instead of the normal DDR-400. Only the P4 Prescott series processors are going to be faster...and then only slightly. So, if I'm struggling, then it's likely that many others with P4/A64 are also struggling, but like I said, I don't know how much of a user base remains on this admittedly older architecture.
Makes sense. Those machines are starting to become dated (the most recent versions of the IPP library - JesseG already mentioned it - don't even include hand-optimized code for them anymore!). But I want to try to keep supporting them for as long as I can.
Well, unless you have something gee-whiz-bang to add, I'm about at the point where I doubt there could be much more enhancement in sound quality that I could hear. I might be able to measure a difference via software at the waveform level, but not just hear it with my ears. It was really already that way with the S-Protection. You all were claiming it was better than the de-esser, but I don't think I can really hear a difference...