Old 14th October 2011, 13:06   #41
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,577
Hi,

Corruption may not be the right term to use here. Beyond checking for disruption of the
music data, tag editors support ID3 specs in different ways and allow for editing of
different tags or call the tags by different names. For example, MP3Tag brings out Codec
and Mode tags which the Winamp tag editor does not (or calls them something else).
Winamp allows editing of a URL tag which MP3Tag does not.

This could lead to the mis-reading and/or rearranging or blending of tags created by
different editors. MP3Val and apps like it, look for this kind of stuff along with corruption
of the music data. Since the tags are before and/or after the music data, they seldom
prevent playback of the song. In most cases, the worst bad tags do is cause the display
of nonsense while increasing the size of the file with useless bytes.

Of course a bad image file is a different case and is not the case here. Also, not the
case here, but a sufficiently 'jacked up' file with the proper internal header and external
file extension could bring Winamp (and any other program) to its knees.

We run virus and malware scanners. It just makes sense to run file integrity checkers if
they are reliable and available.
Aminifu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2011, 13:27   #42
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by damenace View Post
and i was actually thinking of updating my album art anyway as a lot of those 60kB files just look awful in winamp. maybe need to put that on hold until winamp is fixed
That, or (with the size of your collection) consider storing your tracks the 'classic' way.
Extract the embedded images and use one hi-res folder image per album or group of
songs.

That's if embedded images is the problem. I prefer embedded images myself.
Aminifu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 14th October 2011, 17:22   #43
Batter Pudding
Major Dude
 
Batter Pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,665
@damenace: yeah... maybe an idea to hold back for a bit before bumping up that art work quality.


As this thread was pruned out to a new thread, it may pay to add a short, clean description of the issue back in the bug thread. Then add a link to this thread.

i.e. Winamp locks up when scanning large embedded artwork.

Then quote a few example sizes - good and bad.

And give them an example of how quickly it crashes.

And make the link to the video clear to see.

Also note that it does not crash if you do the scan in "chunks" showing that corrupted files have been eliminated.
Batter Pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2011, 00:57   #44
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,577
Hi damenace, MrSinatra, and Batter Pudding

Just want to thank you guys. I have learned some things and been reminded of
other stuff I had forgot.

Been using Winamp since I switched from MusicMatch back in the nineties.

Just recently have had time to be active in the forum. Should have done it years ago.

Thanx again.
Aminifu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 15th October 2011, 07:21   #45
damenace
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 53
created a post in the bug report. just needs to be authorized by a mod now.

hope the guys can fix it
damenace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2011, 17:19   #46
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,190
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
for years, WMP got my art. i never ripped with it, just used it to grab art. 200x200 at mostly sub 100k sizes.

now EAC does art, and i try to pick stuff at ~500x500 and anywhere from 10k to 150k. if i go above 150k, i feel "extravagant" and inefficient.

i have surely gotten some art over the years bigger than 150k, but i see no reason to have such HQ meg sized files. sure, you might put art on TV or something, but in that case, u still want max resolution with smallest filesize that still looks good.

having 3meg art, is imo, drastic overkill, and then doing it embedded is insane. i wouldn't expect ANY app to cope well with that. no wonder the ram is exploding.

PENN STATE Radio or http://www.LION-Radio.org/
--
BUG #1 = Winamp skips short tracks
Wish #1 = Multiple Column Sorting
Wish #2 = Add TCMP/Compilation editing
MrSinatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2011, 22:20   #47
damenace
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 53
any other app copes with that no problem. no questions asked.
and i'm sorry, but we are not in the 90s anymore, where processing power or storage or ram are a limiting factor. this is simply a problem in the code.
damenace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th October 2011, 23:55   #48
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,190
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
well, other apps might cache and resize images for display, but thats a tradeoff scanning timewise.

i have np with the current design choices winamp has made artwise. i also think its designed with minimum specs in mind, not max ones.

PENN STATE Radio or http://www.LION-Radio.org/
--
BUG #1 = Winamp skips short tracks
Wish #1 = Multiple Column Sorting
Wish #2 = Add TCMP/Compilation editing
MrSinatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2011, 13:14   #49
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,577
Hi MrSinatra,

Since the ID3V2 spec allows up to 16MB for embedding art, 3MB is kinda minimum.
Hi-res art is here to stay. To stay 'relevant', WA will have to address this, imo.

Hi damenace,

Does the new version of WA (5.6.2.3189) fix your scanning problem?
Aminifu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 30th October 2011, 16:37   #50
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,190
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
there's lots of things in the spec winamp doesn't support. i don't know of any tagging source that provides such high res/meg images. imo, its not even close to a priority for winamp to address.

PENN STATE Radio or http://www.LION-Radio.org/
--
BUG #1 = Winamp skips short tracks
Wish #1 = Multiple Column Sorting
Wish #2 = Add TCMP/Compilation editing
MrSinatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st October 2011, 10:26   #51
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,577
Hi MrSinatra,

There are apps that just search for cover art that will id vary large files. For me, I try to
embed the smallest file size art that looks good displayed on my 23" (1980x1080) widescreen
monitor. Next year will also try using a big screen TV (planning a holiday upgrade).

I'm very happy with WA the way it is (for most things). Just trying to stay aware of possible
'bumps in the road'.

I'm also aware of the stated viewpoints of some of the WA devs. One does not care for
art in general. One is happy with the ID3V1 specs, thou appreciates the extra room in the
ID3V2 tag fields.

They all appreciate the 'need' to have WA appeal to a large diverse group of users. Proof is
the increased support for portables, including the recent support for 'Mac Sync'. Maybe the
users' desire for hi-res art has not reached critical mass yet, but it will. The default big Bento
skin is helping drive this. IMO, too many users are more impressed with 'eye candy' than the
less obvious, but more important features, WA has.
Aminifu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 31st October 2011, 22:17   #52
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,190
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
i agree with all that, but it will be a long time before its becomes a priority. the orig art implementation to my knowledge has barely been touched since its debut, (meaning getting art) and it uses allmusic.com 200x200 art; so really, i don't see a big need for this yet, or ambition on the part of the devs to do it. (in other words, winamp isn't going to go out of its way to support art bigger than what it gets) jmho.

also, there aren't any places to see the art "big" in default winamp, except maybe the bottom of the playlist window if you make it big? but that would look odd. can you see art in the visualizations? i'm happy with it in bento in ML and the song info pane, both fairly small, (even if set to extra large in ML).

PENN STATE Radio or http://www.LION-Radio.org/
--
BUG #1 = Winamp skips short tracks
Wish #1 = Multiple Column Sorting
Wish #2 = Add TCMP/Compilation editing
MrSinatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st November 2011, 15:29   #53
damenace
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 53
not sure why we would discuss the use of this. clearly libraries are growing and album art is as well.
and clearly there is a bug in the code handling this.

i was hoping that maybe the new release would fix the issue, but seems it doesn't. trying it as we speak, but memory usage is rapidly climbing :-(
damenace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st November 2011, 18:09   #54
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,190
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
you want the program changed b/c you see it as a need. however, it is not a need for most users for several reasons:

1. art is usually displayed very small in winamp, relatively speaking, for most users.
2. the art winamp gets is ALWAYS small, 200x200
3. so if you were to change winamp to handle big high res stuff, you'd also have to change the defaults to use it, otherwise whats the point?
4. then, you'd also have to change the source you use to get art. thats b/c once winamp handles/displays big art by default, it can't use small art as a source. it creates an ugly disparity.

none of this is trivial. and i think to do what you want, winamp would have to cache and resize the art at scan time. if so, i don't want that, but i also could be wrong, there might be other ways to do it.

PENN STATE Radio or http://www.LION-Radio.org/
--
BUG #1 = Winamp skips short tracks
Wish #1 = Multiple Column Sorting
Wish #2 = Add TCMP/Compilation editing
MrSinatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd November 2011, 12:00   #55
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,577
MrSinatra, sometimes you just 'slay' me. You usually do a better job defending your point of view. This is one of your weaker arguments.

Quote:
1. art is usually displayed very small in winamp, relatively speaking, for most users.
First, so what, 'usually' does not mean 'always'. Second where is your survey proof that let's you speak to what 'most' users do.

Quote:
2. the art winamp gets is ALWAYS small, 200x200
Again, so what. WA also supports art (in some cases, not so well) provided by 3rd party sources that is larger than 200x200.

Quote:
3. so if you were to change winamp to handle big high res stuff, you'd also have to change the defaults to use it, otherwise whats the point?
Why is it a given that the defaults have to change? I know, bad form to answer a question with a question (sue me). WA just needs to better handle art up to some limit that is higher than the apparent limit it has now. How high? I don't know. If only 10% of what the ID3V2 spec allows for embedding, that would be 1.6 MB. The point is to provide support for a large (and growing) diverse group of users who have different desires and/or needs than the users of 10 or even 5 years ago. Yes, I do NOT have a survey to support my statement of 'large and growing'.

Quote:
4. then, you'd also have to change the source you use to get art. thats b/c once winamp handles/displays big art by default, it can't use small art as a source. it creates an ugly disparity.
First, you can't use statement 3 as a 'given' to justify statement 4 (really bad form). Furthermore, it does not need to be an 'either or' question. WA should smoothly support art up to some higher TBD limit than it apparently does now. WA also needs to provide the user at least two or three sources to choose from (but that's a whole 'nuther fight).

Quote:
none of this is trivial. and i think to do what you want, winamp would have to cache and resize the art at scan time. if so, i don't want that, but i also could be wrong, there might be other ways to do it.
Finally, so what, again. Hard or easy should not be used an excuse or reason. Breaking ties with what were good design choices 10 years or even 5 years ago will have to happen at some point. Whatever the technique used, the point is that it is possible to do and should be done. Least of all, imo, for the sad reason of 'keeping up with the Jone's'.
Aminifu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd November 2011, 17:35   #56
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,190
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aminifu View Post
MrSinatra, sometimes you just 'slay' me. You usually do a better job defending your point of view. This is one of your weaker arguments.

First, so what, 'usually' does not mean 'always'. Second where is your survey proof that let's you speak to what 'most' users do.
you told me yourself that most users don't stray from defaults. so were you wrong then?

no need to prove the obvious imo.

and i didn't say always. had i meant always, i would have said that. i said usually, and usually is accurate and true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aminifu View Post
Again, so what. WA also supports art (in some cases, not so well) provided by 3rd party sources that is larger than 200x200.
what do you mean so what? is the point not obvious? winamp and its intended usage is designed for what IT DOES, not what other 3rd party stuff does. i don't think i need to explain beyond that. obviously if it accommodates anything beyond or outside the scope of what IT does, then the farther you get from the norm[s], the less likely that support will be good.

if someone who uses videos for folder art exists, should winamp support that? what if they use tiffs? animated gifs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aminifu View Post
Why is it a given that the defaults have to change? I know, bad form to answer a question with a question (sue me). WA just needs to better handle art up to some limit that is higher than the apparent limit it has now. How high? I don't know. If only 10% of what the ID3V2 spec allows for embedding, that would be 1.6 MB. The point is to provide support for a large (and growing) diverse group of users who have different desires and/or needs than the users of 10 or even 5 years ago. Yes, I do NOT have a survey to support my statement of 'large and growing'.
this is the first post i've seen where someone asked for such high res art to be accommodated. frankly, thats not compelling. there are many things winamp needs, but this isn't high up there, for reasons i already laid out.

1. most people don't use 1, 3, 5 or 16! meg files for file images, nor are they asking for it.
2. winamp doesn't, by default, display images in a "large way" anywhere (that i'm aware of)
3. winamp isn't going to change number 2 anytime soon, b/c it uses, and has for years now, 200x200 images, (so, if it were to change, it would create a problem for itself, as users would go "hey, why do my images look so funky")

so, since all that is true imo, i don't see a lot of incentive for the devs to cover the handful of niche cases, like this one here, who want bigger sized images accommodated, if winamp itself isn't going to make use of them, (or provide them), at least in a default way. they do have other priorities that imo, are more important.

and if they have to change scanning technique to do it, it def won't happen.

now, if itunes starts embedding 3meg images into every file, (when hell freezes over), then all bets are off. but right now, images are mainly an item on a computer screen or handheld, and critical mass isn't even close to be concerned about this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aminifu View Post
First, you can't use statement 3 as a 'given' to justify statement 4 (really bad form).
its my opinion, so yes i can. and i would hazard to guess that unless accommodating the request is easy and without drawbacks, it will also be the devs opinion. my guess is it isn't, or else it would prob already have been done, but i have no true programming bonafides, so i don't know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aminifu View Post
Furthermore, it does not need to be an 'either or' question. WA should smoothly support art up to some higher TBD limit than it apparently does now.
the spec calls for what, 16meg images u said? so its your contention someone could have that in every file and have 100k files, and winamp should handle that np?

if so, how would you propose it do that? and if it involves caches and resizing, is that ok with you? is it ok to slowdown the scanning process?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aminifu View Post
WA also needs to provide the user at least two or three sources to choose from (but that's a whole 'nuther fight).
i don't use winamp to get art typically, b/c i don't rip with winamp, so its not like i don't agree with the desire to support art beyond what winamp gets, or the desire to get art from other sources; its just a matter of to what degree is sensible?

its also worth pointing out that if the OP only had, say, 5k files, he'd probably be fine. so its also a question of raw numbers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aminifu View Post
Finally, so what, again. Hard or easy should not be used an excuse or reason. Breaking ties with what were good design choices 10 years or even 5 years ago will have to happen at some point. Whatever the technique used, the point is that it is possible to do and should be done. Least of all, imo, for the sad reason of 'keeping up with the Jone's'.
so what? SO... if the demand is small, (it is), and the amount of difficulty to implement is high, then there is little point and little incentive to do it, esp when other much more pertinent things need attention.

i have listed lots of bugs and faults within winamp in the forums that affect many more people than mega sized art does. like you, i have called for a wiki documentation project. i would rather see efforts concentrated there, then on this issue.

PENN STATE Radio or http://www.LION-Radio.org/
--
BUG #1 = Winamp skips short tracks
Wish #1 = Multiple Column Sorting
Wish #2 = Add TCMP/Compilation editing
MrSinatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd November 2011, 19:34   #57
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,577
Mr Sinatra,

I don't want to turn this thread into a back and forth between us on this stuff. We can use PMs to do that.

Some of what I wrote was done in a joking way. Even so, I stand by my opinions and you stand by yours. Good. I believe we both know the difference between facts and opinions.

Quote:
you told me yourself that most users don't stray from defaults.
That is an incomplete rewrite of what I wrote. So be it.

Quote:
this is the first post i've seen where someone asked for such high res art to be accommodated.
There's always the first time. Does not mean there will be no other requests. Even if there are no more, so what. That does not invalidate the request.


Frankly, I don't care what most users do. I care about what I want to do and whether WA will let me do it and the way it will let me do it.

If I see a post asking for something and if I know a way to have WA do it, I post it. You do the same. I don't care if it helps one person or a million. I don't even care if my suggestion is used. It's enough for me to just make the effort to help. I don't care why you do it, it's enough that you do (when you're helpful).

I join the threads of others for problems I'm also having, in the hope of finding a solution or work-around.

I join the requests of others for stuff I would also like. I don't knock the requests of others for stuff that I'm not interested in. I'm not a WA developer with access to the source code, so I don't presume to know what is or is not possible to do.

Let's agree to disagree. I have little chance of changing your mind on some stuff and vice versa.
Aminifu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd November 2011, 20:05   #58
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,190
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aminifu View Post
That is an incomplete rewrite of what I wrote. So be it.
are you suggesting i took it out of context or somehow distorted the meaning of it? how so?

here it is:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aminifu
While I believe most users never, or very slowly, move away from the WA defaults, there are many users who do 'step outside the box'.
i believe i represented your statement fairly. we both said "most."

later, you asked me for "survey proof" ...but i was under the assumption we both agreed on this point, based on your statement above.

don't get mad at me b/c you contradicted what you yourself said, ...that i just happened to agree with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aminifu View Post
There's always the first time. Does not mean there will be no other requests. Even if there are no more, so what. That does not invalidate the request.
when did i ever say the request was invalid? i simply said i don't think it will be a high priority, and tried to explain why. and yes, numbers do matter. the devs tend to respond to things asked for in high numbers. that doesn't mean they ONLY respond to things req'd in high numbers, but that is the general M.O.

now, they also respond to things that crash the app, even if its in small numbers, but i believe, based on what i know about the app, how this works, and previous exp with the devs, that this may be an issue where they pass, at least for now, b/c no obvious better solution exists. i qualify that tho, b/c i am not "dev-able" and no expert on coding or those matters. my opinion is only as informed as i am... so take that to mean whatever you like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aminifu View Post
Frankly, I don't care what most users do. I care about what I want to do and whether WA will let me do it and the way it will let me do it.

If I see a post asking for something and if I know a way to have WA do it, I post it. You do the same. I don't care if it helps one person or a million. I don't even care if my suggestion is used. It's enough for me to just make the effort to help. I don't care why you do it, it's enough that you do (when you're helpful).

I join the threads of others for problems I'm also having, in the hope of finding a solution or work-around.
at no point did i criticize you or anyone else for doing so, so i'm not sure how this strawman applies to me?

my only point was that the devs have to make choices, their time and resources are extremely limited, and those choices involved cost/benefit analysis. so numbers do matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aminifu View Post
I join the requests of others for stuff I would also like. I don't knock the requests of others for stuff that I'm not interested in. I'm not a WA developer with access to the source code, so I don't presume to know what is or is not possible to do.

Let's agree to disagree. I have little chance of changing your mind on some stuff and vice versa.
indeed, i felt the same way several posts back. i was simply trying to explain my viewpoint since it was asked/challenged. i'm not knocking anything btw, i am simply explaining why it isn't likely to be a priority. jmho.

PENN STATE Radio or http://www.LION-Radio.org/
--
BUG #1 = Winamp skips short tracks
Wish #1 = Multiple Column Sorting
Wish #2 = Add TCMP/Compilation editing
MrSinatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd November 2011, 21:15   #59
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,577
Mr Sinatra,

I'm not mad. I find this amusing. I'm happy to continue the dialog on some of this stuff in PMs.

But to get back to what this thread is mainly about, as a former programmer I know how easy it is to put limit checks on stuff in the program. Limit checks would keep a user from doing something that could cause him problems. I also understand why limit checks are not used on everything.

Those who want to use embedded art can do so and put the appropriate limits on themselves. For scanning, they need to do it in stages (basically watch the memory rise and stop before it reaches crash level, then restart). This is the current 'cost' to the user for doing what they want to do in this area.

For other art related stuff, the user needs to figure out what the WA limits are and try to stay within them or find the possible work-arounds that let them do what they want.

It's fine for 1 and/or many to request the limits be changed without having to worry about a WA cost-benefit analysis that requires information they do not have. So what if there is a great chance nothing will be done. It's probably a greater chance nothing will be done, if the request is not made, imo.
Aminifu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd November 2011, 22:24   #60
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,190
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
fine, but again, for the record, i never said that someone should not make the request, or that the request was invalid. i did however say that i think there is not yet a good enough rationale behind it to justify it, based on the factors i've laid out, so any reference to cost/benefit analysis was only to explain in response to being questioned; its a strawman to imply, if you are, that i am suggesting users make such an analysis prior to a request, b/c clearly, i am not. i am entitled to my opinion, and when asked, i tried to explain why i held that opinion.

in any case, request away.

also, so no one reading this is confused:

Quote:
Originally Posted by damenace View Post
any other app copes with that no problem. no questions asked.
and i'm sorry, but we are not in the 90s anymore, where processing power or storage or ram are a limiting factor. this is simply a problem in the code.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
well, other apps might cache and resize images for display, but thats a tradeoff scanning timewise.

i have np with the current design choices winamp has made artwise. i also think its designed with minimum specs in mind, not max ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aminifu View Post
Hi MrSinatra,

Since the ID3V2 spec allows up to 16MB for embedding art, 3MB is kinda minimum.
Hi-res art is here to stay. To stay 'relevant', WA will have to address this, imo.
i just want to be clear that my post was about "machine specs" not tagging specs. i'm not sure that was understood.

i'd also be curious to know what apps he uses that handle mega art np, b/c if its itunes, i'm pretty sure they cache it on HD. what else?

as to the actual issue, like i said i don't think winamp actually makes a "permanent cache" but what i think it does do, is cache art into ram as you browse it, and then thats all lost once the app is closed. thats why i think i see my ram fluctuates and grow over time, as i scroll thru the art. but whats confusing then is why mega art is crashing the app only when scanned in big enough doses, (during scanning)? i wonder if winamp is actually loading all the art into ram prior to writing the DB, altho i can't understand why it would do that since it only seems to access the art on demand?

PENN STATE Radio or http://www.LION-Radio.org/
--
BUG #1 = Winamp skips short tracks
Wish #1 = Multiple Column Sorting
Wish #2 = Add TCMP/Compilation editing

Last edited by MrSinatra; 2nd November 2011 at 23:43.
MrSinatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd November 2011, 13:33   #61
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
as to the actual issue, like i said i don't think winamp actually makes a "permanent cache" but what i think it does do, is cache art into ram as you browse it, and then thats all lost once the app is closed. thats why i think i see my ram fluctuates and grow over time, as i scroll thru the art. but whats confusing then is why mega art is crashing the app only when scanned in big enough doses, (during scanning)? i wonder if winamp is actually loading all the art into ram prior to writing the DB, altho i can't understand why it would do that since it only seems to access the art on demand?
Ah, This is better.

Now if we can figure out how to test for these possibilities. Or better yet, get a dev to provide the answers. Then at least we would know what's going on.
Aminifu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2011, 00:19   #62
damenace
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 53
still nothing on the issue?
doesn't seem to have reached official bug status. not sure why as this is a reproducable bug.
damenace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th December 2011, 08:03   #63
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,577
I agree damenace.

Winamp does cache album art in physical RAM as it is browsed. The question is why doesn't Windows transfer this data to virtual memory when physical RAM gets low (even if WA doesn't release it). If the WA devs think this is a Windows bug, they should say so.

Or is WA trying to repopulate the physical RAM after the virtual transfer and the devs don't want to say so.
Aminifu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 16th December 2011, 18:55   #64
the_straw
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4
I would like to add my 2 cents here....

First, I can confirm Damenace's issue. I have a very large library ~780 GB of mp3's (over 130000 albums) after having issues scanning I Googled and found this thread. After closing the ML view, exiting and then restarting WA I was able to successfully complete a scan. I did observe a steady increase in memory usage with spikes during the compacting phase. BTW i saw the WA memory usage (at startup) cut in half when the ML is not open. Peak memory usage was ~2GB (I have 4GB, not subtracting out that allocated to video).

I do have cover art embedded in almost all mp3's (~300x300 to 600x600 or ~30k to 150k for typical size). No 1MB cover art. I do not use (view) cover art in the ML. The only time I want to see cover art is when playing the file. I use Cover & Tag to show art and any comments in file.

From my perspective WA is essentially broken as currently configured. I realize there are those who want to see cover art in the ML, but for my size library that's nuts. I don't want to browse by cover art to determine what to play it. I don't think it would give a very good user experience due to memory usage etc.

Regardless of whether this is memory leak or simply WA operating as designed there are some mods that would make it work better. Example, when WA is installed as part of the setup WA could ask whether cover art is desired in ML and inform the installer of the potential additional resources needed to do so. Same is true of comments. I see no reason to load the comment field in the ML. I took a peek at the main.dat file and it has comment data in it and as I understand from reading here so is the cover art. Why?

WA could create a low res jpeg file during the scan process for the ML whenever the user has opted to have cover art and the cover art present is above some threshold size. Of course this may really slow down the scanning process.

The feedback presented during the scan process is also lacking in that there's no progress bar, no info shown about current scan time, estimated remaining scan time or total scan time, there's no log, not even a single line buffer that tells what file might be causing a problem during scans. The file currently being scanned can't be seen in many cases - insufficient display real estate for the current path and filename.

So, have the WA developers even recognized this as a bug?

The developers need to take a page from Apple and try to design something that works and work well rather than just doing a half ass job. This is a core function of the program and it needs to work. Fix this first, instead of adding more bells and whistles like an android app etc.
the_straw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th January 2012, 14:17   #65
damenace
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 53
i'll just push this thread because for some reason it is not recognized as an official bug. no idea why not.
maybe to complicated to fix?

think i'll need to find a new player
damenace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th January 2012, 17:33   #66
MrSinatra
Forum King
 
MrSinatra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: WKPS, State College
Posts: 5,190
Send a message via AIM to MrSinatra
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_straw View Post
The developers need to take a page from Apple and try to design something that works and work well rather than just doing a half ass job.
i have to take issue with that, b/c i think itunes isn't even half assed.

but regarding the art issue, we still aren't even sure how winamp is handling art. i would like to see winamp simply access it on demand, and forget and release it when not in view. i don't want a full cache made, the way itunes does.

PENN STATE Radio or http://www.LION-Radio.org/
--
BUG #1 = Winamp skips short tracks
Wish #1 = Multiple Column Sorting
Wish #2 = Add TCMP/Compilation editing
MrSinatra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2012, 12:11   #67
Batter Pudding
Major Dude
 
Batter Pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSinatra View Post
i would like to see winamp simply access it on demand, and forget and release it when not in view. i don't want a full cache made, the way itunes does.
Winamp can't be caching all of the artwork as my art goes "offline" when I have not logged into my music server.

My tunes and artwork are stored on a server which needs a username and password. Winamp on my PC has a Media Library with the majority of the music stored on this server. I went to look for something just now, and when filtering to "The Pixies" noticed that almost all of the artwork was missing. Out of 14 images only two were showing.

I then logged into the server, refreshed the search, and all the artwork then sprung up.


To me that shows that the artwork is mainly left to be called up "on demand". Yet I cannot explain why there was a couple of albums showing artwork unless those came from a cache. There must be some kind of logic to the madness.
Batter Pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2012, 13:10   #68
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Batter Pudding View Post

My tunes and artwork are stored on a server which needs a username and password. Winamp on my PC has a Media Library with the majority of the music stored on this server. I went to look for something just now, and when filtering to "The Pixies" noticed that almost all of the artwork was missing. Out of 14 images only two were showing.
That is very strange. Since your music server was offline, the only data WA had access to was what was in the media library database. Album art is not stored in this database so no images should have been shown.

Did this happen from a cold boot of the pc?

Winamp Pro 5.666.3516 fully-patched - Komodo X Touchscreen by Victhor skin
Windows 10 Home 64-bit desktop - Logitech Z906 5.1 speaker system
Aminifu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2012, 13:21   #69
Batter Pudding
Major Dude
 
Batter Pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aminifu View Post
That is very strange. Since your music server was offline, the only data WA had access to was what was in the media library database. Album art is not stored in this database so no images should have been shown.

Did this happen from a cold boot of the pc?
Yes, it is strange. The PC had been cold booted. And each time it boots up it is not connected to the server unless I expressly login by hand first.

I was not exactly "testing" this out for this thread. Just pulling up a list of albums I have not played in ages. And when the list came into view I thought "Odd, haven't I sorted all the art yet". Then twigged I had not logged into the server.

After I refreshed the search, all the art popped up.

What I cannot say at this minute is which albums were showing art before this scan and why they would be different. All stored on the server, and none of them had been played in ages. I will now pay attention in the future to see if there is a pattern.
Batter Pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2012, 14:07   #70
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Batter Pudding View Post
What I cannot say at this minute is which albums were showing art before this scan and why they would be different. All stored on the server, and none of them had been played in ages. I will now pay attention in the future to see if there is a pattern.
My music files are not stored separately so I can't test this. It may be that some album art is randomly stored in the media library database. If so, that would be a bug that the devs should be interested in.

Winamp Pro 5.666.3516 fully-patched - Komodo X Touchscreen by Victhor skin
Windows 10 Home 64-bit desktop - Logitech Z906 5.1 speaker system
Aminifu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 15th January 2012, 14:17   #71
Batter Pudding
Major Dude
 
Batter Pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,665
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aminifu View Post
My music files are not stored separately so I can't test this. It may be that some album art is randomly stored in the media library database. If so, that would be a bug that the devs should be interested in.
I will be watching for a pattern. Not as if they were "recently played" or anything like that
Batter Pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2012, 14:17   #72
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,577
Hi,

I noticed the following files in my users/.../appdata/roaming/winamp/plugins/ml folder:
art.dat, art.idx, art_60.dat, art_60.idx, art_90.dat, art_90.idx, art_120.dat, and art_120.idx.

Does anyone know what these files are used for? I only mention them because I see on my system that the first 2 and last 2 in the above list are updated whenever WA is closed and the others are not.

Winamp Pro 5.666.3516 fully-patched - Komodo X Touchscreen by Victhor skin
Windows 10 Home 64-bit desktop - Logitech Z906 5.1 speaker system
Aminifu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2012, 14:36   #73
Batter Pudding
Major Dude
 
Batter Pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,665
Do a forum search on them. I remember them being discussed before, but can't remember what they are about. For some reason a bit of my memory says they are connected with the cached images - but I don't trust my memory to be correct.

My art_120.dat is 22MB
Batter Pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th February 2012, 14:38   #74
Batter Pudding
Major Dude
 
Batter Pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,665
Yes - album art cache files. Found an ancient Dj Egg post referencing them. (http://forums.winamp.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=163)
Batter Pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2012, 17:29   #75
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,577
Hi Batter Pudding,

This may explain why some of your files display art when your files are off-line. I assume each art_*.dat file caches art up to a certain size and art over the max size are not cached. My art_60.dat is 70.6 KB, art_90.dat is 48.8 MB, and art_120.dat is 225 MB! Going forward, I intend to keep an eye on these files for size changes as I change my collection (currently only 6,186 files - all with embedded art of various sizes).

I further assume these caches are not used when only displaying art for the currently selected or playing track, but are used when displaying multiple images for tracks not selected or playing. This would be consistent with the large jump in memory usage when displaying multiple images (i.e. media library album views). It would also be consistent with the further increase in memory usage as more images are displayed that don't fit in any of the 3 cache files.

I hope WA development is quietly looking at album art handling and will provide an upgrade sometime soon. However, it would be nice to get a response (one way or another) from the devs. It seems we have yet to use the 'magic words' that will get their attention.

Winamp Pro 5.666.3516 fully-patched - Komodo X Touchscreen by Victhor skin
Windows 10 Home 64-bit desktop - Logitech Z906 5.1 speaker system
Aminifu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2012, 17:45   #76
Batter Pudding
Major Dude
 
Batter Pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,665
@AMinifu: I am not exactly looking close at this issue, or even going back and re-reading the thread as it is not a problem for me. (And now I quickly scroll back I see the thread started months ago, then got distracted in pointless OT bickering) But yes - I had assumed that the images were cached somewhere due to my being able to "see" images from my server even when not logged in to it. I had just forgotten about these art_xx.dat files until someone mentioned the names.

And I would expect that this is being taken seriously by the devs. This thread started in the bugs reporting thread, but got hived off into its own thread by a mod due to the size of the back and forth discussion. Just remember that they NEVER pre-announce work or what is being updated. As an ex-dev myself I can understand this "lack of promises" as that way you don't break any promises.

Bigger art is going to cause more problems into the future. I know how much hassle I get in my day job now with people trying to email 20MB of photos out. And when it doesn't work, they then email them AGAIN but this time CC'ing themselves!! And then wonder why their own mail system is also broken....

Average Art and File Sizes are rocketing up in size and a LOT bigger than planned for in the original Winamp designs of the 1990s. This means the issues will eventually be addressed.
Batter Pudding is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2012, 19:59   #77
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Batter Pudding View Post
@AMinifu: I am not exactly looking close at this issue, or even going back and re-reading the thread as it is not a problem for me. (And now I quickly scroll back I see the thread started months ago, then got distracted in pointless OT bickering) But yes - I had assumed that the images were cached somewhere due to my being able to "see" images from my server even when not logged in to it. I had just forgotten about these art_xx.dat files until someone mentioned the names.
I appreciate your responses. I got interested in the issue, as presented by the original poster, even-though it is also not a problem for me. My collection is still small enough to have it's album art fit within the RAM on my system, so no crashing.

I apologize for being part of the OT bickering. The suggestion made, to only use small non-embedded art, was (and is) not an acceptable solution for me.

I selfishly hope this issue is addressed before it becomes a problem for me. I now check WA's memory usage (if I have scrolled through a lot of art images) and if I find it excessive, I simply close and restart WA. The only problem with this work-around is that sometimes the main WA process does not exit with the rest of WA. But, that's another isolated issue.

Winamp Pro 5.666.3516 fully-patched - Komodo X Touchscreen by Victhor skin
Windows 10 Home 64-bit desktop - Logitech Z906 5.1 speaker system
Aminifu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2012, 20:16   #78
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,880
i've not read everything (or likely will do) but any displaying of album art be it from the cache or when loaded directly will use more memory as most embedded album art is done in formats which compress the image down and to be displayed requires decompressing them and that will use more memory.

the cache files are done as one for each size of artwork based on the option set for the library album art view and as such the cache is done so that it'll take what is taken from the tag, is resized to the setting of the view mode and then stored which is how it's been since the feature was added in 2007. maybe there are some things which can be done but i really struggle to see what could be done with a design which tries to use a cached version over re-reading from the original tag and converting everytime - there probably are things but my mind is full of cold and mush from a mass of data entry so nothing comes to mind at the moment.

-daz
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2012, 22:24   #79
Aminifu
Forum King
 
Aminifu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,577
Hi DrO,

The original issue in this very long thread, is why does WA allow RAM usage to climb to the point of an app crash when processing a lot of album art (such as when rebuilding the library of a large collection of files with embedded art, or an original scan of a large collection needed for making a Gracenote playlist based on a selected track, or just scrolling through a lot of art).

Other apps allow the OS to swap part of their RAM data to the hard drive (virtual memory techniques) to keep excessive RAM usage crashes from happening. WA does not seem to allow for such data swapping in this case. If there is no way for the cache system to release memory of art that is not actively being displayed, then it may be better to reread and convert the active images as they change.

Winamp Pro 5.666.3516 fully-patched - Komodo X Touchscreen by Victhor skin
Windows 10 Home 64-bit desktop - Logitech Z906 5.1 speaker system
Aminifu is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 6th February 2012, 23:01   #80
DrO
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 27,880
i really don't know and it's something you'd really need someone who knows the code to answer what is going on. though i'm not aware of anything directly preventing the OS's use of virtual memory to be blocked and i'm not even sure how that could even be done.

as for scrolling through the view it is going to cause things to be read from the cache so as long as the view is still open, if you keep scrolling then i would expect it to use more memory until all images have been loaded for all of the items in the view. however, as i said in my prior post i'm not really sure of what is going on (and i just don't feel like looking through source code for something that i'm not all that interested in looking into as it's not something i'm obliged to work on let alone try to fix / change / etc).


as for Gracenote related issues, as all of their dlls are closed-source i cannot comment on what they are doing.

-daz
DrO is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & SHOUTcast Forums > Winamp > Winamp Bug Reports

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump