Foobar2000: Conversion is using too much CPU

QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

akse0435

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2021
Messages
15
Location
Denmark
Hi,

I have some iso files ripped from SACD's, which I'm trying to convert to flac files with Foobar2000. However, when I start the conversion, Foobar2000 just seems to use all the CPU threats, and the computer imediately gets extremely slow and unuseable, and I haven't been able to find a way to change that.

How can you change how many threats the program will use for conversion?

Thank you.

Kind regards
 

quadsearcher

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
1,059
I've seen that, I let it go and it was done later. I've no idea how long it took.
 

Mr. Afternoon

Surround Engineer and Artist
Joined
May 10, 2021
Messages
811
Location
In Your Speakers
When converting from one format to another, a good encoder will always find a way to maximize your CPU to get the job done as fast as possible. If you have a lower-end device, it isn't recommended to convert stuff while you're actively using the computer.
 

boondocks

Senior Surround Collector
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
2,761
Location
State of Being
I've never encountered any slowdowns from doing file conversion in Foo that I'm aware of. My older machine is a 6th gen i7/16GB RAM, my newer one is a 10th gen i7/32GB RAM.
The only app I ever notice getting bogged down is the Dolby Reference Player when I open Outlook.
 

stoopid

Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
44
Location
Las Vegas, NV
When converting from one format to another, a good encoder will always find a way to maximize your CPU to get the job done as fast as possible. If you have a lower-end device, it isn't recommended to convert stuff while you're actively using the computer.
I also suspect the computer is old and/or underpowered. You might be able to assign Foobar a lower cpu priority, which will allow it to more easily release the cpu when another task asks for processing. I think by default it should be low or normal priority though, I wouldn't suspect having to change this. So I still think that the underlying issue is the computer is just slow.
 

quadsearcher

1K Club - QQ Shooting Star
Joined
Nov 8, 2010
Messages
1,059
I also suspect the computer is old and/or underpowered. You might be able to assign Foobar a lower cpu priority, which will allow it to more easily release the cpu when another task asks for processing. I think by default it should be low or normal priority though, I wouldn't suspect having to change this. So I still think that the underlying issue is the computer is just slow.
Yup. The PC I noticed it on has only 4G RAM.
 

akse0435

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2021
Messages
15
Location
Denmark
Well yes, I suppose my computer is a bit underpowered. I'm using 1 TB SSD, 16 GB RAM, but only a 3rd generation Intel I5 processor with 2.8 GHz, so I suppose that could be why.
 

LuvMyQuad

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
4,417
Location
Western NY
Well yes, I suppose my computer is a bit underpowered. I'm using 1 TB SSD, 16 GB RAM, but only a 3rd generation Intel I5 processor with 2.8 GHz, so I suppose that could be why.
It may be slow by todays standards, but that should be plenty of horsepower to do conversions.

An I5 has 2 cores and each core can hyperthread 2 threads if the software allows.
 

Sonik Wiz

đź‘‚ 500 MPH EARS đź‘‚
QQ Supporter
Joined
May 30, 2005
Messages
3,608
Location
Kansas City
One of the best improvements in audio/video app speed I've encountered is using multiple task designated storage devices. In my set up that means one good size high performing SSD for OS & apps only (even browser cache is off loaded) and then 3, 4TB internal HDD's. The basic idea is to design a workflow where you are reading from 1 HDD & writing to another. Specifically I have 1 HDD for ripping, downloading, general storage, browser cache. And my AA3 and other editing A/V apps use this as a designated temp file storage.

Then I have 2 more HDD's that are pretty much the work drives where I open & edit what ever in one drive & save/write to the other drive. In batch processing it works great where files are opened up & automatically saved from one drive to the other. I think the more conventional way of just using a large single drive, partitioned into 2 or more sections , or just using whole would be a real drag.

I am impressed at many of the PC/MAC whatever systems our members have. Mine is pretty good but it's eclipsed by some of the monster set ups I randomly run across here. It might be good to start a dedicated thread for computer set ups & compare notes.
 

stoopid

Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
44
Location
Las Vegas, NV
Well yes, I suppose my computer is a bit underpowered. I'm using 1 TB SSD, 16 GB RAM, but only a 3rd generation Intel I5 processor with 2.8 GHz, so I suppose that could be why.
The i5 should be adequate, but the SSD is running over the SATA port and that's limits it a bit, especially when accessing data from within a mounted ISO and converting that in real time to a new file on the same SSD. At least, if I were to guess nothing else wrong/all things being equal, that's probably where the bottleneck is.
 
Last edited:

akse0435

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2021
Messages
15
Location
Denmark
The i5 should be adequate, but the SSD is running over the SATA port and that's limits it a bit, especially when accessing data from within a mounted ISO and converting that in real time to a new file on the same SSD. At least, if I were to guess nothing else wrong/all things being equal, that's probably where the bottleneck is.

Almost spot on, but I am, in fact, converting the files to another SSD, but maybe it doesn't make a difference.
 

stoopid

Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2019
Messages
44
Location
Las Vegas, NV
Almost spot on, but I am, in fact, converting the files to another SSD, but maybe it doesn't make a difference.
If both SSDs are attached internally via SATA, one holding the ISO file and the other the output from the conversion, then that should eliminate any perceivable bottlenecks.
 
Top