4.1 beta 1, build 1911

new build features

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
Increased audio processing multithreading to take advantage of hyperthreading, dual-core and multiple CPU systems, removed “multithreaded DirectX plug-ins” option and added “Multithreaded audio processing” option. Increase in performance should be ~10% with hyperthreading CPUs and ~50% with dual CPU


just when i’m happy with the current non-beta release, i’m given a good reason to want the upgrade :O yay for performance improvements! :D

cool… my daw is the only machine i have with one of those HT processors… but damnit, now i want dual!.. :D

i wonder if you can adjust the affinity for dual procs and dedicate a processor to effects and the other to all other system operations, including n-track?.. just curious… and what about using dual HT processors?..

isaac

Quote (idover @ July 20 2005,10:01)
cool... my daw is the only machine i have with one of those HT processors... but damnit, now i want dual!... :D...

i wonder if you can adjust the affinity for dual procs and dedicate a processor to effects and the other to all other system operations, including n-track?... just curious... and what about using dual HT processors?...

isaac

Phooey on that... I wanna run n-Track on the Cray over at the Alabama super-computer center... :D

TG

Woah… talk about running with the big dogs.

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
and what about using dual HT processors?..


Unfortunately not possible, I’ve read the architecture of the P4s don’t lend themselves to multiprocessor environments, the explanation was all engineerspeak so I didn’t much much from it. But I think this is part of the reason that Intel built the HT architecture.

.-=gp=-.

ok, someone explain this surround sound. Does it gotta be burnt to DVD? Or can you burn thru CD burner? I don’t have a DVD burner and wife gets upset if I ask for $5 a month.

I’m absolutly clueless on this format. Guess I could sell a Les Paul or two. :(

Quote (YazMiester @ July 20 2005,17:23)
ok, someone explain this surround sound. Does it gotta be burnt to DVD? Or can you burn thru CD burner? I don't have a DVD burner and wife gets upset if I ask for $5 a month.

I'm absolutly clueless on this format. Guess I could sell a Les Paul or two. :(

or you could sell your wife :D... kidding!... you shoul be able to get a generic dvd burner (dual layer +- r/rw) for around fifty bucks now... have a look at newegg.com, they usually have good prices...

there was an earlier post about the mystery of the surround features... to this point my tiny little brain seems to think that the medium doesn't really matter - you need a wave file with specific information that can be decoded by some device... my first idea was to try creating a flat dvd video that included my audio, but not luck with that...

it's a mystery to me as well... :(...

be sure to post up any findings on this!..

thanks,
isaac

Tried selling the wife Isaac, uh, the Pauls bring more money. (Sorry Honey).

Well this may turn into an adventure since I was wanting a DVD burner for transposing my kids video’s to DVD. Just gotta upgrade alot of stuff. Maybe write some new music for this also. Been a while since writing anything. So, DVD production here I come. :D

Quote (YazMiester @ July 20 2005,17:23)
ok, someone explain this surround sound. Does it gotta be burnt to DVD? Or can you burn thru CD burner? I don't have a DVD burner and wife gets upset if I ask for $5 a month.

I'm absolutly clueless on this format. Guess I could sell a Les Paul or two. :(

Cd Audio Redbook standard: 16 bit 44.1khz Stereo
DvD Audio (is there an official standard yet?): 24bit 96khz 5.1

new features new features new features
old fixes old fixes old fixes

why cant it be

old fixes old fixes old fixes
perfect

new feature
new fix
perfect

new feature
new fix
perfect etc etc

seems like to many new features while there are still
other issues
i could be wrong i’m still on 3.3 after 4.0x was toooo buggy

i would agree… however, there must be a reason why “new features” seem to happen just as often (or more often) than the “old fixes”… could it be that the “old bugs” are not reported with enough detail to fix? i still think we need a “closed beta testing” group who would be willing to spend more time ironing out old fixes and new features before a new exe hits the website. build 1846 has been working well for me, personally. when version 4 came out i had quite a few issues. i reported every one of them to flavio, and they were all fixed in subsequent builds. unfortunately, i won’t be able to test the new beta extensively as i do not have a good setup for surround sound.

I think it’s great that Flavio throws up a Beta version AND a mature, stable version for us to tinker with. My DAW is dual boot so I play around with the Beta in one OS and have the stable release version on the other more optimized OS for serious work. When the beta gets REAL close, I move it over for testing but keep the installer for the old just in case. I wish had more time to test the beta versions. I actually enjoy it and I think it helps out in the long run. I learn something new in the process and that’s always a good thing. :)

TG

personally, i like it too because i understand what a beta version means and i have a setup where i can play around with the beta and report bugs, and not have to worry about that particular install crushing my “production” setup. i am a software developer in my day job, so i love that kind of stuff… and i think i can provide useful bug reports. i’m glad i have the chance to participate in that.

however, from what i’ve seen in the forum in the past, there are alot of people who download it and are upset with the product when the beta or “new build” of the non-beta version comes up and causes problems. likely, that is not good for business… and if you are one of the few who can handle playing around with a buggy beta version, sign up to be a beta tester… it would be safe to assume that beta testers aren’t going to complain in the forum when a bug comes up :wink:

Quote (james kelly @ July 21 2005,17:30)
why cant it be

old fixes old fixes old fixes
perfect

new feature
new fix
perfect

new feature
new fix
perfect etc etc

Not making excuses, but I would guess that Flavio has only a relatively small test setup, and that in his test setup, along with the limited number of bug reports he gets, what you’ve said actually is how it looks as far as he can tell without outside input. So once things settle with his testing, he has to release it to the world (i.e., you and I) if he’s to get anymore input.

I can’t say I could reasonably expect more from paying US$49-$75 while getting over a year of free updates. I didn’t realize it when I first downloaded the demo, but I quickly found out that the n-Track software development cycle is a very different animal than nearly all other commercial software cycles I’ve come across. It’s more of a commercial community project, IMO, or even a subscription model, while I’d say the support response overall is much better than most purely-voluntary projects out there–and even other commercial projects.

But this type of thing is not for everyone, and Flavio knows that, I’m sure…

My 2 cents…

Tony

Quote (dimmer77 @ July 22 2005,07:17)
i still think we need a “closed beta testing” group who would be willing to spend more time ironing out old fixes and new features before a new exe hits the website.

I’d say it would be hard to get a reliable test group together without paying them, and with the cost of n-Track, I don’t see how it could be easy for Flavio to put one together, barring sheer luck.

Not sure if this has been brought up before, but one option I’ve thought about is to have a rewards system for bug reporting. Give credits to users based on the number of valid bug reports submitted, maybe a dollar/euro per bug for each bug, perhaps more depending on the magnitude/importance of the bug. Flavio would determine if the bug report is valid (reproducible, non-trivial, etc.) and assign credits accordingly. Accumulation of credits would result in discounts or even a free upgrade to the next major version, etc. There will often be several reports of the same bug, so if they can’t all be credited, credit the first person to report it. Have a bug ID system where the submitter of any “accepted” bug report receives a unique ID number for the bug in order to keep track of how many he/she has been credited for, as well as for redeeming the credits later.

This could motivate more people to submit quality bug reports-- especially those who don’t respond much to the warm-fuzzies of “contributing to the community”–all without actually paying out cash (though it would seem to reduce cash coming in, although a higher quality product may increase sales).

Just a (somewhat sketchy) thought…

Tony

or…


Just create a “closed” forum on this site for beta testing. Those of us that wanted to beta test would have to apply to Flavio to gain access. Flavio could then post private links to the beta downloads, and we could discuss bugs in the closed forum.

the idea is to keep the new builds off of the website and away from the general user population until a group of users (even a small group) with different setups has had a chance to go at it and report a few gleaming issues that might not have come up in development testing. i’m sure there are many ways to do this, i’m sure an incentive program is not required to get a small group of reliable users going, but that could be one way to help expand the group if needed. wouldn’t be hard to come up with a list of “tasks” to test on each build, which would make it easy for the group to have a starting point for a quick testing session.

in my experience, bugs introduced during system changes are most often released because of how time consuming it is to test every function that exists in the software.

The closed forum idea certainly is simpler and cheaper! But I don’t really like the idea of closing the beta off from the general public. I think perhaps it should be more obscure or toned-down on the web site, separated more from the official release and perhaps with a really conspicuous warning, but I don’t see the harm in keeping it available for those out there who happen to have a spare minute to look for bugs which a small test group–however reliable–won’t ever see. There are so many systems, sound interfaces, and drivers out there that I don’t see a small beta test group improving much on what we have today. However, if you get a big, reliable closed test group for free, then that’s another story :) On the other hand, I wasn’t saying that giving incentives was absolutely necessary, though. It was just an idea that crossed my mind for attracting as large a willing test group as possible without actually paying anyone cash. Not a suggestion, just an idea. But I would like to see the beta remain available outside a closed testing group.

Heck, you could even put them together, having the incentives kick in only AFTER the closed test group gives the beta its initial blessing. That way all the easy-to-find bugs get squashed, making it more of a challenge for the general pubic to find bugs and earn credits.

I believe Flavio has bartered with free n-Track registration in the past–I think Mike/MrSoul was the one who said Flavio gave him a free n-Track registration for supplying the “On A Roll” song project for the Downloads page (correct me if I’m wrong)–so I don’t think Flavio would consider the incentives idea completely foreign as long as the terms are sufficiently restrictive. But it would be more work for him to keep track of a user/bug-report/credits database, so it would have to be worth the effort.

Tony

i don’t want to see the beta removed from the website either. i just want to see it go through the motions before it is posted for the general user community. i think this will mean the beta’s are more stable when they go up, and the official releases should be even more stable because of it. basically give the new releases a prodding by a group of people who expect to break it, THEN post it on the website if there’s nothing major discovered in a few days.

fewer bugs reported by the general communty (and potentially new users to n-track) will make n-track come across as a more reliable application overall.