Minimize Excessive Player Processor Use?

[Josh Mellicker]

Incidentally, the docs on qtIdleRate have an error, they say:


"A higher idle rate will result in smoother playback but will also require more cpu time."

but they should say:

"A LOWER idle rate will result in smoother playback but will also require more cpu time."


Lowering the qtIdleRate from 20 (30% CPU) to 1 (50% CPU) improved playback performance dramatically for me.

I wonder what the qtIdleRate represents - maybe a "tick" (1/60 sec)?



On Jan 25, 2010, at 3:10 PM, Scott Rossi wrote:

> Recently, Colin Holgate wrote:
> 
>> On Jan 25, 2010, at 3:56 PM, Scott Rossi wrote:
>> 
>>> Is there any disadvantage to having
>>> a high qtIdleRate value when the only files played by the player will be
>>> audio files?
>> 
>> 
>> You might want to do something else, say a repeat while the mousedown, and see
>> (or hear) if the sound dries up with different idle settings.
> 
> Well, here's one finding...
> 
> It appears that MP3/4 audio files encoded at a "high" rate (ie 256 kbps)
> require a semi-frequent qtIdleRate.  After testing several AAC files, I was
> able to get 256 kbps tracks to play with a qtIdleRate of 250 -- any rate
> longer than this caused large gaps in the playback.
> 
> I will do some more testing but it seems that audio files encoded at "low"
> rates -- 128 kbps and lower -- can play fine with a long qtIdleRate
> interval.
> 
> Still working on that balance between performance and bogging down the
> user's system like molasses in winter...
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Scott Rossi
> Creative Director
> Tactile Media, UX Design
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution