The analysis of the volume per track takes a lot of time

Help improve MediaMonkey 5 by testing the latest pre-release builds, and reporting bugs and feature requests.

Moderator: Gurus

warsan
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:46 am

The analysis of the volume per track takes a lot of time

Post by warsan »

Is it normal that analyzing volume per track takes between 5 and 10 seconds? With this it takes several days for my whole collection. The workload is hardly there for CPU and SSD. I imagine that in iTunes something like this took under a second. Or can I speed this up somehow?
Lowlander
Posts: 51476
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 5:53 pm
Location: MediaMonkey 5

Re: The analysis of the volume per track takes a lot of time

Post by Lowlander »

Check your settings under Tools > Options > Performance. You can set how many cores the process can use.
Peke
Posts: 14908
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 7:21 pm
Location: Serbia
Contact:

Re: The analysis of the volume per track takes a lot of time

Post by Peke »

warsan wrote: Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:46 pm Is it normal that analyzing volume per track takes between 5 and 10 seconds? With this it takes several days for my whole collection. The workload is hardly there for CPU and SSD. I imagine that in iTunes something like this took under a second. Or can I speed this up somehow?
Out of curiosity I tested in in Sound Forge Pro Studio which costs 400 USD and it takes exactly to same time to analyze volume like MM. also Tested in Latest iTunes and it takes 6-11s per track depending on size and format. Only MM downside (if it can be called downside) is that MM is multi threaded and can take all 16 cores (in my case) and analyze 16 tracks at same time. Yes it is CPU intensive, but you can do it in batches. I personally limit Analyze on a 4 cores and leave it for few hours if I find that I want to listen do not have Gain Index analyzed eg. simply I do not bother with tracks I have never listened or have not searched for. Yes it takes months/years, but those I play and listen regularly all have Volume index.

Hope this clears something on how things stands with Volume analyze and if 180mb FLAC needs to be analyzed it needs to be read whole, decoded and analyzed as fast as possible and that needs CPU power+Fast SSD.
Best regards,
Peke
MediaMonkey Team lead QA/Tech Support guru
Admin of Free MediaMonkey addon Site HappyMonkeying
Image
Image
How to add SCREENSHOTS to forum
warsan
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:46 am

Re: The analysis of the volume per track takes a lot of time

Post by warsan »

Tools > Options > Performance is set to all cores, but it seems it uses only one. As only one track is finished after 5-10s. CPU load is around 15% during analyzing.

Most files are mp3 or aac

I have an i7-9700
Win10

EDIT: I tried to set it to 4 cores which MM set it to 1. Seems there is an error in core detection/addressing.
warsan
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:46 am

Re: The analysis of the volume per track takes a lot of time

Post by warsan »

Could you reproduce it? Or could I change that?
Peke
Posts: 14908
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 7:21 pm
Location: Serbia
Contact:

Re: The analysis of the volume per track takes a lot of time

Post by Peke »

Hi,
I am unable to replicate. Here is what I tested and what results were.
1 core 20 tracks minute 4.2ghz per core
4 cores 70 tracks minute 4.2ghz per core
8 cores 120 tracks minute 4.1ghz per core
16 cores 180 tracks minute 3.9ghz per cores

That is local hdd speeds, on tracks from nas it is 20% slower (I have 4x1Gbit LACP connection to switch so always full 1Gbit connection to devices)

Using Over wifi then it falls under 20 tracks a minute, even I have 10MB transfer speed and i kill all other trafic.

File copy test using Windows Explorer and Plain copy/paste on 60mb FLAC Windows explorer from 1 hdd to different hdd takes 2-3s, lan to hdd 4s and wifi to hdd 12s.

WiFi connection is 175-450mbit/s ~ 5-6MB/s (average)

Note: update tags on edit is disabled as when I enable it speed is 1/3 due the read/write hdd bottlenecks and random multiple read/writes.

I do not see any issue in MM, you can see my hardware setting in my signature.
Best regards,
Peke
MediaMonkey Team lead QA/Tech Support guru
Admin of Free MediaMonkey addon Site HappyMonkeying
Image
Image
How to add SCREENSHOTS to forum
warsan
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:46 am

Re: The analysis of the volume per track takes a lot of time

Post by warsan »

I can't see a bottleneck on my side too. Its direct SSD usage no network and SSD load is also below maximum.

What I wanted to know if this could be the error:
I tried to set it to 4 cores which MM set it to 1. Seems there is an error in core detection/addressing.
Peke
Posts: 14908
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 7:21 pm
Location: Serbia
Contact:

Re: The analysis of the volume per track takes a lot of time

Post by Peke »

Hi,
I use 5.0.2.2510 from viewtopic.php?f=30&t=86639&sd=d
Here is my core setting and CPU usage
Image
Best regards,
Peke
MediaMonkey Team lead QA/Tech Support guru
Admin of Free MediaMonkey addon Site HappyMonkeying
Image
Image
How to add SCREENSHOTS to forum
warsan
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2021 2:46 am

Re: The analysis of the volume per track takes a lot of time

Post by warsan »

Can you reproduce this behavior:
"I tried to set it (Tools > Options > Performance > Volume Analysis) to 4 cores which MM set to 1" after reopen the options.

The main question is, why is MM using only one core and how can I change that?
rusty
Posts: 7610
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2003 3:39 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: The analysis of the volume per track takes a lot of time

Post by rusty »

Can you reproduce this behavior:
"I tried to set it (Tools > Options > Performance > Volume Analysis) to 4 cores which MM set to 1" after reopen the options.

The main question is, why is MM using only one core and how can I change that?
I'm not able to replicate that, but it sounds as if you've found the root of the issue.

I assume changes to other settings persist correctly? If so, can you please send a debug log (covering startup / changing settings / starting up again)? See details at: viewtopic.php?f=30&t=86643

That'll hopefully give us the information needed to figure out why this is happening. Thanks!

-Rusty
Post Reply