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 [email protected] Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
