Forum: Wishes and new features

Post here the features you would like to see developed in VirtualDJ in the future.
Topic: Making loading of songs quicker - Page: 2
sischoPRO InfinityMember since 2005
Andrew87 wrote :
But what you're asking for is impossible. You cannot decompress a file into memory instantly - you cannot load a decompressed file into memory instantly. Traktor is probably just loading a cached graph of the waveform, that doesn't mean the track has loaded 100%, and Virtual DJ lets you skip ahead anyway.

To demo this I decompressed an 8 minute mp3 to a wav file using ffmpeg, it took 5 seconds. Virtual DJ took just under six seconds to load the same mp3; that's perfectly acceptable imo - I can't think of a way they can speed it up.

I don't know how but Traktor and Serato spend much much less time compared with VDJ in loading tracks. If they do, I can't understand why VDJ can't as well.

geposted Mon 07 Jun 10 @ 9:27 am
If they decompress the file they do not spend less time loading a track, they only give the illusion that's what they do (probably using a cached graph for the waveform). Test it yourself in Traktor; make sure you have Task Manager open and check how long the usage stays at 50% (or 25% if you're using a Quad-Core) when you're loading a track. Itself and Virtual DJ should be within 10% of each other.

geposted Mon 07 Jun 10 @ 12:35 pm
sischoPRO InfinityMember since 2005
I tried and this is the result:
after loading a track, VDJ keeps CPU usage high (around 100%) for more than 10 seconds instead Traktor keeps CPU usage high (around 80-90%) for 3 seconds.

geposted Tue 08 Jun 10 @ 1:38 am
Are you on a singlecore machine? 3 seconds sounds about correct for a 4 minute track - your Virtual DJ speed is kinda slow though; I can only assume it's purposely limiting the speed of loading due to being near to 100% although that shouldn't be the case on a dual-core or above machine.

geposted Tue 08 Jun 10 @ 3:11 am
sischoPRO InfinityMember since 2005
Yes, my machine is single-core

geposted Tue 08 Jun 10 @ 10:27 am
bakpa79PRO InfinityMember since 2008
SO glad i found this thread. my mp3's were taking forever to load. i didnt know about the speedload function so we'll see how that works but i can say as far as skipping ahead before the track loads i have had bad results. i noticed that artifacts appear in the song most of the time if i play it before its loaded fully. sometimes my cue points will move when i press play and the track is still loading. sometimes parts of the song will be in the wrong place.
this and another issue i've been having with the timecode (i backspin one record and the other starts making robotic stuttering noise) are the main things keeping me from relying on vdj as a professional performance tool.
i'm sure you guys will get it together someday but perhaps it is a good idea for vdj to build overviews like serato does. people really trust serato and they think vdj is a toy (at least in the USA thats the general consensus).
i'm dying to help change that because i see a lot of potential in vdj, but at some point you gotta be for real. i cant play a party when i have to wait for songs to load (sometimes you might just play a song for a second or part of a song quickly and you dont have time to wait), and i have songs glitching and playing out of order etc.
lets make it good!

geposted Fri 18 Jun 10 @ 3:48 pm
sischoPRO InfinityMember since 2005
you wrote well, someday!!

geposted Fri 18 Jun 10 @ 4:21 pm
I tried reproducing slow loading by running Virtual DJ in a software emulated single core virtual machine (although with 3.2GHz C2D it's hardly slow) but my speeds were surprisingly quick - less than 5 seconds for a 5 minute track.

Sischo what kind of hardware and operating system are you running on? You don't have an antivirus program interfering with Virtual DJ do you? It is odd behaviour that Virtual DJ is actually the quickest software you tested for the first load but it takes over 10 seconds at 100% cpu utilization to decompress an audio file into system memory.

geposted Sat 19 Jun 10 @ 6:18 pm
sischoPRO InfinityMember since 2005
It is Windows XP SP3. I tried to disable my Avast antivirus but the loading time is the same.

geposted Sat 19 Jun 10 @ 8:03 pm
JoeyKJPRO InfinityMember since 2008
Hey Sischo

Try this software it Will speed things up for you, Your issue maybe a background service play here so this program should help, and its Free.

Good Luck


geposted Sun 20 Jun 10 @ 10:06 am
sischoPRO InfinityMember since 2005
Probably you are not paying attention to my words:
as I wrote here, if I try to compare VDJ with Traktor and Serato there isn't competition in fact the same song in VDJ needs 10-15 seconds for loading instead with Traktor and Serato in 2 seconds is ready to being played (I am talking on my machine for sure).
I can add that VDJ during this time interval makes busy my CPU around 90% instead Serato and Traktor at the maximum around 50%.

Hence don't tell me it is my hardware or I need to optimize the RAM because that is WRONG.

geposted Sun 20 Jun 10 @ 11:47 am
10-15 seconds? For me it takes 2-3 seconds for a 4 minute track. I can tell you it's not VDJ, so I'd hate to say it but it has to be either hardware related or your machine is bogged down with a lot of crapola.

geposted Sun 20 Jun 10 @ 12:10 pm
But it is specific to your machine. Loading an unanalysed track on your machine takes so long that it sounds as if you are running an old Sempron processor or definitely one of the 5yr old budget competitors. The architecture in these are so ancient that I was able to load tracks inside of an operating system inside an operating system 3x quicker than your machine. Virtual DJ at fault? Debatable. Maybe your CPU is missing some extensions like SSE3 and has no l2 cache whatsoever - there's also the possibility you have some other software interfering.

I stick by my comment that it's better for you to upgrade your machine than for Atomix to optimize the program for whatever hardware setup you are running as you are clearly the minority.

geposted Sun 20 Jun 10 @ 4:29 pm
sischoPRO InfinityMember since 2005
Andrew you are right, probably my machine is not so new but I wonder why Serato and Traktor work faster and more efficienlty on my "old" machine.

Talking about software, for example Avast antivirus released the new 5.0 version a few months ago wherein they described their software was optimized for "old" CPU usage.

According to your view, Atomix should released new versions which work only for Windows Vista and Windows 7 since WindowsXP is not sold anymore.

If they would try to optimize it for old CPU, that wouldn't be so bad for the newest CPUs too.

geposted Sun 20 Jun 10 @ 5:42 pm
There comes a point in the development life cycle where it's just not worth supporting old platforms. Take Internet Explorer 6 as an example; it is a nightmare browser to support for web developers because it does not follow standards properly and requires various hacks to get things to work. As the software is getting older (i.e. Microsoft do not sell XP any longer and will stop support for it in a year) the percentage of IE6 users decreases and web developers do not have to spend their time supporting it.

Atomix could investigate where the problem lies and if it does turn out to be related to only older CPUs attempt to address the issue. But time is limited. Why change something which affects 3% of users (and decreasing everyday) when there are other things more worthy of development time which affect many more users. Whatever is causing slow loading is very specific to your machine.

Optimizing loading speed for older processors does not necessarily mean there is any benefit to newer processors due to the differences in instruction sets supported. But the problem is mainly to do with the 'cost' of development, i.e. there are likely more important things that must be implemented.

If the next major version of Virtual DJ takes at least two years to come out perhaps Virtual DJ 7 will not support XP (a DirectX 10 minimum requirement). To be able to take benefit of the latest hardware you have to utilize it, this often means dropped support for older machines. That's just how it is.

On the assumption that tracks are loading slowly because of a hardware limitation, yes it is possible that something could be done to speed up load times (as evidenced by Traktor and Serato) but is it worth it? Don't forget that Virtual DJ is a newer generation software in the sense that it supports more advanced multimedia features, e.g. mixing video of any filetype with a very rich plugin support. To continue with this sort of trend it is probably not worth the cost in development to look back at something which will never affect new users to the product and only affects a minority of the current users who will likely get a new machine soon to take advantage of the latest features anyhow.

Just my opinion, I understand it can be frustrating when a product differs from others in what seems to be a simple thing. Maybe I'm way off with what the real problem is here but for most people Virtual DJ does load songs quickly enough compared to the competition.

geposted Sun 20 Jun 10 @ 6:15 pm
sischoPRO InfinityMember since 2005
I understand your words Andrew.

Today I tried the same song im my office with a Intel Core 2 Quad Q8200 @ 2.3 GHz with 4 GB RAM and it needs 4-5 seconds.
Yes, it's one third compared with the time on my "old" machine (around 15 seconds as I wrote here) but it remains the double of Serato loading time track on my "old" machine.

That means it is not my old machine to prejudice the loading time but rather it is a not efficient CPU usage in VDJ.

geposted Mon 21 Jun 10 @ 2:55 am
Look man, face facts, the reality of the situation is your machine is too slow, no two ways about it. Everyone is trying to spell it out for you. Upgrade your laptop and not only will songs load quicker but everything else will run smoother.

geposted Mon 21 Jun 10 @ 6:05 am
dizzyrocks2001 wrote :
Look man, face facts, the reality of the situation is your machine is too slow, no two ways about it. Everyone is trying to spell it out for you. Upgrade your laptop and not only will songs load quicker but everything else will run smoother.

I dissagree with what you guys are saying, cause yes the song can be played while its loading but the volume is not right which means its not ready.............Now spinning rap thats not gonna work unless your just mixing. It doesnt do that with the other programs so no he shouldnt have to upgrade his laptop when the other programs are fine.............. What needs to happen is that the volume issue needs to be fixed and I could care less if the wave form is there. Thats just my 2 cents


geposted Mon 21 Jun 10 @ 7:33 am
There is not 'volume issue'. There is only a jump in volume when a track is loaded for the first time because VDJ can't adjust the gain until the track is fully analyzed, but provided the track has been previously analyzed, every subsequent load of the song will have the correct gain which means you can start playing the track while it's loading and there won't be a volume jump when it is finished loading.

This guy is complaining that VDJ takes too long to load a song, yet other programs like Serato don't take as long, and seeing as it's a major issue for him he has two choices... use Serato, or get a new laptop. He has failed to even post his specs other than that his laptop is a single core (which is sub-par), but chances are it's an older laptop and not up to the task of running VDJ smoothly. Whether it's VDJ or Photoshop, eventually software advances and requires more and more powerful machines to run the software smoothly. I have a 6 year old iMac I use at home but VDJ runs super slow on it, the reason being... IT'S A 6 YEAR OLD IMAC lol, and I don't expect new software to run on an old machine with sub-par specs. If anyone wants to take DJing seriously they should have a computer that is up to the task, not expect the developers to retro-fit their software to accommodate the small percentage of users who don't want to upgrade their hardware.

geposted Mon 21 Jun 10 @ 8:31 am
sischoPRO InfinityMember since 2005
Yes, I agree with you dizzyrocks but when I will have money to buy a new laptop or a MAC for sure I will use another software or maybe I will buy Serato too till I cannot buy a new machine.

geposted Mon 21 Jun 10 @ 9:08 am