[Red Jacket Mike]

Well, the highest setting is 4096 MB (4 GB).  If you have long, hi res tracks that are close to that in file size (which would be pretty rare) there's a chance that BitPerfect and/or iTunes would have to access your hard drive if the data in the buffer ran out.
 
I think the buffer setting is the amount that BitPerfect can load into memory, as long as you have enough RAM.  If that's the case, there's no sense setting the buffer to anything higher than the amount of RAM you have; I have 8 GB in my mini, so I have it set to the highest setting.
 
I have one 24/192 album of twelve tracks, and it's total file size is about 4 GB, after converting the FLAC files to AIFF.
 
I don't think anything is degraded sonically by using the largest setting, but I may be wrong.

 

[DougofTheAbaci]

If you had a 4GB track it's because you have HD tracks as one single file. Which, honestly, why?

 

[ardgedee]

I have albums that are 55 minute long single tracks (mostly extremely long improvisations, or compositions that are not broken into movements). But yes those examples are rare. And since even high-res tracks will stream more slowly than the disk can output, I assume the buffer can refill faster than it empties.

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

Well, the highest setting is 4096 MB (4 GB).  If you have long, hi res tracks that are close to that in file size (which would be pretty rare) there's a chance that BitPerfect and/or iTunes would have to access your hard drive if the data in the buffer ran out.
 
I think the buffer setting is the amount that BitPerfect can load into memory, as long as you have enough RAM.  If that's the case, there's no sense setting the buffer to anything higher than the amount of RAM you have; I have 8 GB in my mini, so I have it set to the highest setting.
 
I have one 24/192 album of twelve tracks, and it's total file size is about 4 GB, after converting the FLAC files to AIFF.
 
I don't think anything is degraded sonically by using the largest setting, but I may be wrong.

I have 4GB of memory but I'm upgrading to 8GB.   I tend to use a lot of different apps when I'm listening some more memory hungry than others so I'm thinking no real reason to give BitPerfect more memory buffer than it needs but that won't matter once I upgrade to 8GB anyway.
 

 

[agentsim]

There shouldn't be any significant degradation in sound quality no matter what buffer size you use. Set it to whatever works best for you. Larger buffer sizes will prevent HD activity from BitPerfect, but iTunes will still be reading the file in the background.

 

[WarriorAnt]

Does BitPerfect take the memory as needed or does the buffer put aside the amount chosen and it is no longer available for system use for other apps or does memory acquisition not work that way.  I do not know these things so I wonder about how memory gets used.

 

[iamoneagain]

Does anyone else find version 0.30 buggier than 0.29?  I'm getting more stuttering when doing anything with iTunes again.  If I sync an iPhone or import and album, sometimes the song I'm playing restarts.  Don't think I had these problem with 0.29.  Also, when I once clicked on another track, it started in the middle of the track.  I'm not sure how I revert back to the previous version but think I'm going to find a way.  Hopefully I don't break Mac store update when 0.31 comes out.

 

[Red Jacket Mike]

Quote:

I have one 24/192 album of twelve tracks, and it's total file size is about 4 GB, after converting the FLAC files to AIFF.

 
Quote:

If you had a 4GB track it's because you have HD tracks as one single file. Which, honestly, why?

 
No, it is 12 separate tracks; I'm just saying that the total for all twelve of them is around 4 GB.  The songs are each in the 300-400 MB range.
 
 

 

[Red Jacket Mike]

Quote:

Does BitPerfect take the memory as needed or does the buffer put aside the amount chosen and it is no longer available for system use for other apps or does memory acquisition not work that way.  I do not know these things so I wonder about how memory gets used.

If it works like Pure Music, it should take each track as its queued up, and play it using RAM instead of having to access the hard drive during playback.  I would think that if you are using your computer for other tasks while listening to music, it might be an advantage to use a setting lower than the max of 4096, even if you will eventually have 8GB of RAM.
 
With my Mac Mini, it is 'headless' and dedicated only for music playback.  Anything not necessary for this has either been uninstalled, trashed, or turned off.
 
When I'm listening, I may be using my MacBook or iPad for other things, but the Mini plays music only.

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

If it works like Pure Music, it should take each track as its queued up, and play it using RAM instead of having to access the hard drive during playback.  I would think that if you are using your computer for other tasks while listening to music, it might be an advantage to use a setting lower than the max of 4096, even if you will eventually have 8GB of RAM.
 
With my Mac Mini, it is 'headless' and dedicated only for music playback.  Anything not necessary for this has either been uninstalled, trashed, or turned off.
 
When I'm listening, I may be using my MacBook or iPad for other things, but the Mini plays music only.

Ive got to get a Mac mini...

 

[kiwidave]

 
Interesting, I would say I find 0.30 better than 0.29
 
Streaming 24 / 96K from external drive connected to 2009 mac-mini  <wireless 2.5 gHz> airport extreme <wireless 5 gHz> 2011 macbook pro 13 @ 8 gig ram, OS 10.7.1
 
Except for one tiny glitch at beginning of first track (approx 3 sec in) its been bullet proof, also no issues with  24 / 44.1 streams with up sampling enabled.
 
Have been comparing BitPerfect with Pure Music -- and I can honestly say cannot hear any difference (though that may be the limitations of my dec / headphones), so for the cost involved, I think I'm onto a winner with BitPerfect.. 
 

 

[EdChap]

Agentism... any ideas why my BP is so laggy? It's fine on 320 tracks, but FLAC converted tracks (using Fluke) slows the whole thing right down...

 

[agentsim]

Hi Ed, I haven't spent much time optimizing FLAC playback. Fluke is really second-rate so I would strongly recommend converting to ALAC with XLD. When the bug reports have calmed down some more I'll see about improving FLAC support but I haven't got an ETA yet.

 

[WarriorAnt]

Quote:

Hi Ed, I haven't spent much time optimizing FLAC playback. Fluke is really second-rate so I would strongly recommend converting to ALAC with XLD. When the bug reports have calmed down some more I'll see about improving FLAC support but I haven't got an ETA yet.

I convert all my FLAC to ALAC using XLD.    I don't run any other programs while I 'm converting.
 

 

[DougofTheAbaci]

 
Quote:

I don't run any other programs while I 'm converting.

Is there a reason why not? I mean, other than having it convert faster it doesn't effect the conversion process in any way.