syberman
Hello everyone. I was just wondering if VDJ developers can add a new feature on the next update. When you add music files and you let VDJ scan them, is there a way the developers can show the user that the scan will be done in 15 minutes or 20% done of 100%? Also, if the developers can let the users just right click on a folder with the songs that need to be analyzed with out opening up VDJ. Any comments?
Syberman
Syberman
geposted Fri 06 Feb 09 @ 2:05 pm
Sonido Alto Voltaje
It is very annoying when you scan large folder for BPMs and you have no idea how long before it is completed.
geposted Tue 10 Feb 09 @ 11:57 am
jimmy b
Here's a little trick I discovered,
when it's scanning if you use the "down" arrow key it will show you how far down your files it's got to and the one's it's scanned so far.
geposted Tue 10 Feb 09 @ 12:13 pm
ffelix
Another issue with the BPM scanning: It seems to take a huge amount of CPU on my 1.8ghz p4 laptop, and sometimes makes the main audio output pause or skip.
I notice (by looking at the winxp pro task manager) that it's a thread running within the main program, and seems to have the same scheduling priority as the main decoder/mixer/encoding thread(s). BPM scanning should always have _lower_ scheduling priority than the main decoder/mixer/encoding threads, so it doesn't cause noticeable skipping when scanning a new directory while playing live.
After all, playback should never be compromised in a program meant to keep people moving. A good DJ becomes a horrible one when his main track stops playing correctly just because something else on the system is hogging the CPU.
I notice (by looking at the winxp pro task manager) that it's a thread running within the main program, and seems to have the same scheduling priority as the main decoder/mixer/encoding thread(s). BPM scanning should always have _lower_ scheduling priority than the main decoder/mixer/encoding threads, so it doesn't cause noticeable skipping when scanning a new directory while playing live.
After all, playback should never be compromised in a program meant to keep people moving. A good DJ becomes a horrible one when his main track stops playing correctly just because something else on the system is hogging the CPU.
geposted Mon 16 Mar 09 @ 3:31 am
tayla
a good dj will have scanned his files before doing a gig... and never ever accept to play a punters tune they have brought to the gig on a stick/pen
geposted Mon 16 Mar 09 @ 4:48 am
SBDJ
Why would anyone be running a scan of a folder live? Prior preperation ;)
That said, I often scan individual tracks and it has no noticeable hit on my system at all. Perhaps you need to look at an upgrade if you're trying to squeeze too much out at once.
That said, I often scan individual tracks and it has no noticeable hit on my system at all. Perhaps you need to look at an upgrade if you're trying to squeeze too much out at once.
geposted Mon 16 Mar 09 @ 4:50 am
cstoll
ffelix wrote :
Another issue with the BPM scanning: It seems to take a huge amount of CPU on my 1.8ghz p4 laptop, and sometimes makes the main audio output pause or skip.
Maybe consider getting out of the OLD days and upgrade your system. Could be a memory issue as well.
But agree with the posts above - you should have your files already scanned prior to do a gig - not done at the gig.
geposted Mon 16 Mar 09 @ 11:06 am
Charlie Wilson
jimmy b wrote :
Here's a little trick I discovered,
when it's scanning if you use the "down" arrow key it will show you how far down your files it's got to and the one's it's scanned so far.
Here's a little trick I discovered,
when it's scanning if you use the "down" arrow key it will show you how far down your files it's got to and the one's it's scanned so far.
I do that too
geposted Mon 16 Mar 09 @ 5:24 pm
SBDJ
I just noticed his CPU specs?
1.8GHz P4?
Holy jebus, that CPU was launched back in 2001 wasn't it?!
1.8GHz P4?
Holy jebus, that CPU was launched back in 2001 wasn't it?!
geposted Mon 16 Mar 09 @ 7:28 pm