View Single Post
Old 22nd March 2012, 21:57   #100
Batter Pudding
Major Dude
 
Batter Pudding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,665
DrO - The artwork was being pointed at as a possible culprit because of work we did in the first page of this thread (especially #20 to #40). I do believe it is worth reading the second half of the first page (before the thread went OT) as we did some testing in there.

It was in there that we noticed a difference between a collection of music I scanned on a clean virgin PC with no embedded artwork and Damenace's collection with quality embedded artwork in every file (Artwork sizes of 40-100kb and some are 300-900kb per track)

Specifically I noticed (post #38) that when watching the video it could be seen each album caused a jump of multiple megabytes in the memory allocation. I don't embed artwork, so my test laptop did not show any jump. A back-of-fag-packet calculation came up with ten tracks with 600KB images in them adding up to 6MB per album on demenance's scans. This seemed to fit the video.

So it was my fault for the "blame the embedded quality artwork" comments. The maths seemed to fit. Could it be that as the MP3 TAG fields are loaded up into memory it is also picking up the data that would be the artwork? I don't mean specifically loading the "art" to store, but reading in the data because it is a TAG field?
Batter Pudding is offline   Reply With Quote