Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Suggestion to avoid mandatory steps when browsing
16-08-2012, 10:26
Post: #21
RE: Suggestion to avoid mandatory steps when browsing
(16-08-2012 09:51)winxi Wrote:  2) removing [part] would mean that no album would be split automatically because of files residing in different folders. For different but equally named albums (which is clearly an exceptional case) the workaround would be using the already existent feature 'match filter'. This would meet the expectation from a tag-based media server but it would also lead to a less efficent scanning.

I don't understand why 2 (or more) equally named albums should pose a problem. I always thought albums are grouped by AlbumName AND AlbumArtist. If there are equally named albums but with different album artists, then those are different album, otherwise it's a single album. I couldn't think of a case with 2 differ albums with a exact same album name, from a same artist!

PS: that's why we name AlbumArtist as "Various Artists" for complication album when each track has a different artist.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2012, 10:43
Post: #22
RE: Suggestion to avoid mandatory steps when browsing
(16-08-2012 09:51)winxi Wrote:  2) removing [part] would mean that no album would be split automatically because of files residing in different folders. For different but equally named albums (which is clearly an exceptional case) the workaround would be using the already existent feature 'match filter'. This would meet the expectation from a tag-based media server but it would also lead to a less efficent scanning.

One example: is it so uncommon? There is the example of "Ballads".
I checked for "Ballads" in my collection and MinimServer is already doing a good job: I have "Ballads" from John Coltrane, from Miles Davids and from Dexter Gordon.

Now, I thought the reason for MinimServer to present them correctly separated is because it checks that the Artists are different....But apparently is because the files are in different folders (in my case, stored according to the "Artist > Album" rule in JMRC).

I believe it would be feasible to apply a rule: IF several albums with same name AND Artist is different > Split.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2012, 10:49
Post: #23
RE: Suggestion to avoid mandatory steps when browsing
(16-08-2012 10:43)mikejazz Wrote:  I checked for "Ballads" in my collection and MinimServer is already doing a good job: I have "Ballads" from John Coltrane, from Miles Davids and from Dexter Gordon.

Just to further stress the importance of this...I checked how the same album is appearing using the Synology Media Server...and its a mess: only one album (by the way using one of the covers, it appears the fine photo of Dexter Gordon, buy why?...) and then, all the tracks..
--track 01 by Dexter
--track 01 by Coltrane
--track 01 by Miles...
..and so on..
What a mess!

So MinimServer is already much better and now we are already discussing improvements to it...Simon must be proud!
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2012, 11:37
Post: #24
RE: Suggestion to avoid mandatory steps when browsing
(16-08-2012 09:51)winxi Wrote:  
(16-08-2012 08:55)simoncn Wrote:  Removing [part] would bring the less efficient path into play for all albums. For a small library, this wouldn't matter. For a large library, I'm not sure what the impact would be. I would need to measure the impact and possibly do further optimization work to compensate.

I see, scanning efficiency is of course a very important point. Let me summarise, i hope that i understand everything right:

1) Now, files of the same album in different folders are automatically split. This is useful for different albums with the same name but it is a problem for users with certain folder structures. For such users, it can be 'worked around' by using [part] or by changing the folder structure. Moreover, the current behaviour is useful for reasons of efficiency.

2) removing [part] would mean that no album would be split automatically because of files residing in different folders. For different but equally named albums (which is clearly an exceptional case) the workaround would be using the already existent feature 'match filter'. This would meet the expectation from a tag-based media server but it would also lead to a less efficent scanning.

This implies a tradeoff between efficiency and user experience. For me personally, efficiency is very important. If you decide to keep 1), it would be a good idea to clearly point out in the user guide that files from one single album have to reside in the very same folder (except for multidisc and [part]).

I agree that efficiency is very important. It's also very important to have clean semantics that are natural and convenient for users and don't cause surprises. Ideally it would be possible to achieve both of these.

Before making a final decision on this, I'll need to implement a prototype and do performance measurements for speed and memory. I don't have a large library myself, so it would be helpful if someone who has a large library could offer to run a performance comparison using the prototype and send me their results.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2012, 11:41
Post: #25
RE: Suggestion to avoid mandatory steps when browsing
(16-08-2012 10:26)psme Wrote:  I don't understand why 2 (or more) equally named albums should pose a problem. I always thought albums are grouped by AlbumName AND AlbumArtist. If there are equally named albums but with different album artists, then those are different album, otherwise it's a single album. I couldn't think of a case with 2 differ albums with a exact same album name, from a same artist!

This is definitely possible with classical music if the same work is recorded by the same artist on multiple occasions during the artist's career.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2012, 11:48
Post: #26
RE: Suggestion to avoid mandatory steps when browsing
(16-08-2012 11:37)simoncn Wrote:  I don't have a large library myself, so it would be helpful if someone who has a large library could offer to run a performance comparison using the prototype and send me their results.

I can offer a library of about ~25000 audio files. I'm currently about to retag my files, so a good part of the library isn't properly tagged at the moment.
I would be happy to assist, but maybe somebody other has a more appropriate library (larger and more properly tagged).
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2012, 11:59
Post: #27
RE: Suggestion to avoid mandatory steps when browsing
(16-08-2012 10:43)mikejazz Wrote:  One example: is it so uncommon? There is the example of "Ballads".
I checked for "Ballads" in my collection and MinimServer is already doing a good job: I have "Ballads" from John Coltrane, from Miles Davids and from Dexter Gordon.

Now, I thought the reason for MinimServer to present them correctly separated is because it checks that the Artists are different....But apparently is because the files are in different folders (in my case, stored according to the "Artist > Album" rule in JMRC).

I believe it would be feasible to apply a rule: IF several albums with same name AND Artist is different > Split.

At the moment, the scanning rules are:

1) For a single-disc album without the [part] marker in the folder name, assume the album is contained within a single folder.

2) For a multi-disc album, or for a single-disc album with the [part] marker in the folder name, apply the merging rules.

The merging rules are:

Tracks with the same album name from different folders are merged if:

a) the artist is the same (this is the AlbumArtist value if present, or else it is the Artist value if all tracks have the same Artist tag)

and:

b) if a match filter is present on any of the folders, it must be present and identical on all the folders
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2012, 12:31
Post: #28
RE: Suggestion to avoid mandatory steps when browsing
(16-08-2012 11:41)simoncn Wrote:  
(16-08-2012 10:26)psme Wrote:  I don't understand why 2 (or more) equally named albums should pose a problem. I always thought albums are grouped by AlbumName AND AlbumArtist. If there are equally named albums but with different album artists, then those are different album, otherwise it's a single album. I couldn't think of a case with 2 differ albums with a exact same album name, from a same artist!

This is definitely possible with classical music if the same work is recorded by the same artist on multiple occasions during the artist's career.

Another case would be multiple copies of the same album in different formats, such as 44.1/16 FLAC, 96/24 FLAC, MP3, AIFF, etc.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2012, 15:13
Post: #29
RE: Suggestion to avoid mandatory steps when browsing
(16-08-2012 12:31)simoncn Wrote:  [quote='simoncn' pid='711' dateline='1345113660']
[quote='psme' pid='705' dateline='1345109191']
I don't understand why 2 (or more) equally named albums should pose a problem. I always thought albums are grouped by AlbumName AND AlbumArtist. If there are equally named albums but with different album artists, then those are different album, otherwise it's a single album. I couldn't think of a case with 2 differ albums with a exact same album name, from a same artist!

(16-08-2012 12:31)simoncn Wrote:  This is definitely possible with classical music if the same work is recorded by the same artist on multiple occasions during the artist's career.
In this case the Date field would be populated with the different years of the release...maybe it could conditionally be used and the albums be presented with a "Album + Date" concatenation?

(16-08-2012 12:31)simoncn Wrote:  Another case would be multiple copies of the same album in different formats, such as 44.1/16 FLAC, 96/24 FLAC, MP3, AIFF, etc.

Currently I manually change to Album name if I need to sort this difference (For example, I have DSOTM in 44.1/16 FLAC and 96/24). Additionally one could use a bit depth TAG (in my case automatically populated by JMRC). However, in my case, I am not so interested in this sort, as double entries for albums are very few.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2012, 15:45
Post: #30
RE: Suggestion to avoid mandatory steps when browsing
(16-08-2012 15:13)mikejazz Wrote:  
(16-08-2012 12:31)simoncn Wrote:  This is definitely possible with classical music if the same work is recorded by the same artist on multiple occasions during the artist's career.
In this case the Date field would be populated with the different years of the release...maybe it could conditionally be used and the albums be presented with a "Album + Date" concatenation?

That would be possible, but I think the rules are complicated enough already without adding more cases that bring extra tags into play.

(16-08-2012 15:13)mikejazz Wrote:  
(16-08-2012 12:31)simoncn Wrote:  Another case would be multiple copies of the same album in different formats, such as 44.1/16 FLAC, 96/24 FLAC, MP3, AIFF, etc.
Currently I manually change to Album name if I need to sort this difference (For example, I have DSOTM in 44.1/16 FLAC and 96/24). Additionally one could use a bit depth TAG (in my case automatically populated by JMRC). However, in my case, I am not so interested in this sort, as double entries for albums are very few.

It's always possible to work around these issues by changing the album name. I'd like to provide a solution that doesn't require that.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)