Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[tunetyme]

benn600 The topic here is the core music product.  I think your idea has merit, prehaps it would best be served by starting a new thread.

Tunetyme

[tunetyme]

The Database
In this second of four posts, I want to suggest that there would be some benefit to some features of the database. 

I don’t want to start the annual discussion on a relational database here.

Exporting the database.  It would be nice to be able to export selected fields (and their sequence) into a flat file (comma separated).  That will enable me to import it into any app I want.  Html is ok for some, but it is flaky when handling foreign characters (illegal characters).  I haven’t been able to use it. 
Work around and printing covers.  My work around is dbPoweramp’s database.  It is easy to use and export into a flat file or html just by selecting which option I want.  I can sequence and format the output.  I use this to print CD covers as I can get it formatted in a columnar format and adjust to fit, if needed. 

Importing music is quick and straight forward.

Backups.  I really appreciate the regular backups.  It would be nice if playlists could be backed up in an M3U format as added protection.  I do it manually now.

Drive letter.  Is there an easy way to change the drive letter that the database is looking at?  I am looking at adding Icydock’s tray-less hard drive kit.  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817994062   
As I insert various drives it would be a great asset to be able to redefine the drive letter.

Using command line expressions.  There may be a wiki on this but I haven’t seen it yet, if there is then ignore this.  I admit that I haven’t looked very hard either.  It would be great to know how and when to use this capability.

Please chime in with any additional thoughts on improvements for the database.

Tunetyme

[JimH]

... why not have the server take care of actual television recording while the clients are not bothered?  Then, each htpc can sleep as needed and the server (already running 24/7) can easily save out dozens of TV streams (lol). 

MC can do this now.  It can record as many shows as you have tuners and horsepower for.  Same for serving.  Library Server lets you share recorded TV.

[tunetyme]

Music Analysis or Advanced tools

The third of four posts.
BPM
Improve BPM analysis.  I’ve already posted a comparison of MC, Mixmeister BPM analyzer, and Mixshares Rapid Evolution.  Here is that post:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=51551.100 

There are several good ideas in the DJ thread.  One of the suggestions is to add the ability of Harmonic mixing.  Two sites you can learn about it is:
http://community.mixedinkey.com/Participate.aspx?ID=1
http://www.mixshare.com/
Both sites provide a good overview of mixing in key.  While these sites are DJ oriented this opens the door to building playlists that flow together perfectly.  The mixshare product is particularly interesting.  They highlight different songs that will blend harmonically with the previous one.  The database has much to be desired and it takes a painstakingly long time to analyze songs.  On recent independent comparisons they are the most accurate. 

If MC decides to take a closer look at creating a DJ interface this would open up a new market.  It would be great to use this kind of interface at parties where people could play DJ.  More on this in the next post on building playlists.

Tunetyme

[tunetyme]

Jim, if you sort your member database by posts you will find that 80 to 90% of all posts are by the people on the first page, by page 33 you are at 0 posts.  So the majority of your members haven’t posted a single time.  You have a total of 20278 members and there are approximately 300 members per page.  Frankly, the 300 on the first page are not enough to support a company.  Yet, it is this group that shapes your views, your product and direction.  The best advice anyone could give you is you need to find out what the bulk of your users want and need.  It is not just about having the latest and greatest gee whiz crap.  Get a professional pollster and reach out to your entire base of users and find out what they want.  I have suggested one.  I have known the CEO for twenty+ years and if you want to email me I will be glad to introduce you to him.  After 30+ years in senior management and an IPO under my belt, I can tell you one thing is certain.  When you lose touch with your customers you are done.

[JimH]

Jim, if you sort your member database by posts you will find that 80 to 90% of all posts are by the people on the first page, by page 33 you are at 0 posts.  So the majority of your members haven’t posted a single time.  You have a total of 20278 members and there are approximately 300 members per page.  Frankly, the 300 on the first page are not enough to support a company.  Yet, it is this group that shapes your views, your product and direction.

I would say that they help shape the product.  I'd give our users a weight of about 40%, with the rest made up of what we think, what our corporate customers want, and the market -- Win7 comes out and suddenly touch is more important.  Or Apple decides to shut down access.

The best advice anyone could give you is you need to find out what the bulk of your users want and need.  It is not just about having the latest and greatest gee whiz crap.  Get a professional pollster and reach out to your entire base of users and find out what they want.

I'm sure that's good advice, but it's also important to win the hearts and minds of people who aren't our customers.

I have suggested one.  I have known the CEO for twenty+ years and if you want to email me I will be glad to introduce you to him.  After 30+ years in senior management and an IPO under my belt, I can tell you one thing is certain.  When you lose touch with your customers you are done.

OK.  Thanks.

[tunetyme]

Marketing 101
Just remember it costs 10 times more to get a new customer than to retain your existing ones.  When you decide to offer tangible improvements in the core music product I'll consider upgrading until then you lost me as a customer and an advocate for your product.  Even if you can map out development plans for the next few years that addresses user concerns it would have been worthwhile to upgrade to support that effort.  MC is going in directions that offer no benefit to me as a consumer and I don't want to pay for their development without a corresponding benefit.

I wish you the best of luck. 

Tuentyme

[Daydream]

This is interesting. I was just about to post a reply 3 times in this thread but I haven't. However as tunetyme brought it down to a nice closing I'll speak from my angle, which might reveal a bigger problem. Which is how would JRiver make both you and me happy. Because I would argue from the exact opposite angle, argue whether audio is core, blast any argument about core audio development to pieces, and ask about integration of media, which in my opinion is the future, and not making a Media Center app a tool for DJs around the world.

Pretty interesting dilemma.

[tunetyme]

Daydream it is about being the best product in each area you move into.  I have not advocated that this become entirely a DJ tool.  But the music community is by far the largest and it is vital to keep that community on board or you lose your primary revenue base.  It may very well be that video will become the dominant media that is managed by MC in the future.  Right now, the music community is primarily funding the new development and we are not getting any value for our investment in the music portion of the product.  All that is being asked is that some of the development dollars go back into the core music product.  Is that an unreasonable request? 

[Alex B]

I use MC mostly for music and I have seen constant improvement over the years. The UI (especially the views), player engine, database, format support, compatibility with other programs and server functions have improved considerably in each version.

Perhaps the JRiver development model makes the improvements seem less tangible because the program has improved steadily. J River has developed well over one thousand Media Center builds during the last few years and at least several hundreds of them have been released publicly.

The version number breaks are not as significant as when the features do not change during the lifetime of each individual version.

The development of MC14 continues and I guess the last build of MC14 will be quite different from the current build. The active users have always been able to influence the direction of the development.

I see the yearly (or so) upgrade purchases a bit like a voluntary subscription system for this constantly developed product.

[JimH]

... the music community is primarily funding the new development and we are not getting any value for our investment in the music portion of the product.  All that is being asked is that some of the development dollars go back into the core music product.  

OK, Tunetyme.  Gloves off now.  The Marketing 101 remark was condescending.  JRiver will be 30 years old in two years.  I started the company in 1981.  I'm happy that your experience is superior to mine, but I'm ok with mine too.

Your opinion that "the music community is primarily funding the new development..." is not based in fact.

Time will tell whether our strategy of going after an integrated, comprehensive approach to media is the right one.

In the meantime, I hope you will reconsider your opinion of our business practices.

[rick.ca]

I suppose this would be a bad time to ask about my stamp collection...

[justsomeguy]

Sounds like it is getting a little tense in here......

I understand both view points here.  I happen to fall into the category of user that only uses the audio portion of the program.  It can be argued all day who and what is the core of MC.  It seems difficult to focus on one without alienating the other and since a vast majority of MC owners never post anything on this forum it is hard to know what to focus on.  Which is why I think you modify your licensing scheme.  Sell a license for audio only that disables video and pictures or a license that's only video or video and audio.  This seems like the best way to know what your users really want.  If 75% of sales are for audio only license.... then  you know who your core is.  Myself I don't see a compelling reason to upgrade to 14 as I only use the audio.

[johnd126]

I'm afraid I'm another customer who would prefer that MC become the best music program in the world rather than splitting off into other areas.  I have a dedicated PVR program (BeyondTV), I have several photo organizing programs (ACDSee, Adobe Bridge, etc.) and these programs are focused on one thing and do their jobs extremely well.  I doubt very much that an all-in-one program will ever match their capabilities.  What I very much would like is a high end music organizing program that would work along side of them. 

Here are some ideas on the audio side that would get me to upgrade from MC12.

1. I most often listen to music on a computer in the office connecting MC to a MC server in the basement.  A feature I would very much like would be the ability to make changes on the client (to tags, for instance, or smartlists) and have them reflected in the main database on the server.  Right now I have to make notes and remember to do the changes when I VNC into the machine.

2. Sync'ing music to my Windows Mobile device has never worked reliably.  Most often it would either fail to copy without explaining why or attempt to reload all the music on the device.  I would like to be able to connect and get a list of what's on there and drag and drop music on and off without having to doublecheck it.  (I've resorted to dragging folders through Explorer.)

3. I would like to be able to use MC as my default music player when clicking on an audio link on a web page.  Each time I do this and then want to play my own music I have to shut down MC and restart it.  Often it will hang when I try to close it and I'll have to kill it in task manager.  I've switched to Media Player for this purpose ... see how desperate I am??

[craigmcg]

Matt or Jim will have to confirm this but if I understand correctly the MC14 Library server is now read-write so your first point should now be possible.

I have never had any problems with syncing to my wife's or my Sansa clip with MC14- the one issue I had was on a previous version using an RCA Lyra with a corroded memory stick (my wife accidentally got tea with milk in it).

I have never had problems with playing internet radio then switching to my music library with MC14 (or earlier versions).

All this to say that, although I very rarely buy software, I have bought MC since version 11- even though I don't come close to using it to it's full potential for music and rarely use it for anything else.

I have seen significant improvements in a variety of areas, many of which I don't use (but I might someday) and most surprisingly, developers showing a refreshing responsiveness to user requests.

What I would really like to see is MC be able to do my taxes for me- having to pay for a new version of tax software every year and still having to pay in is far worse than the upgrade cost for the next version of MC 

Seriously, I would like to have an easy way for MC to record audio without auto levelling and turning on/off when no sound is present. I hadn't read enough or paid enough attention when doing sound check to realize this was happening before trying to record a handbell concert in my church with unfortunate results.

[Gl3nn]

I'll add that I'm primarily an MC14 "audio only' guy too.  It's unlikely I'll abandon Adobe Lightroom & Photoshop any time soon, especially given my investment there (time & $).

That said, I agree with

I see the yearly (or so) upgrade purchases a bit like a voluntary subscription system for this constantly developed product.

and I have faith that some of the improvements I wish for (like Album-centric data entry!  ) will in fact materialize one day.

[MrHaugen]

You can't argue with the fact that most users on this forum is music centric. That would be foolish. So, the improvements in music sides of MC can't stop. You would risk loosing much of the regular users. The question is, would many of this users also use this app for Video, Theater View and Images as well, IF MC was better at it. In many cases I believe the answer is yes.

I also believe that it could open up MC sales for a whole new user group that uses Windows MC, XBMC and iTV (or whatever) today or tomorrow. I don't think MC have to be the best in Theater View, Video or Images either. It's to hard to accomplish with limited recourses, over companies that develops for only one media type. If the most important functions is in place, most people would prefer one app to control all their media instead of different applications for music, video and images.

Where do the Media trend go? The general media trend go towards music, video and images anytime and anywhere, HTPC's with Media Centers for all media playback and big media systems for houses or apartments, media players in cars, planes etc.

As other users say here, there are improvements on the audio side for every single version. It can't be called small either.

[tunetyme]

Jim:

As you say its’ time to take the gloves off.  I will speak to you man to man.  This isn’t personal its pure business. 

You say I was condescending with my marketing 101 comment.  It was intended to be.  What about your comment: “I would say that they help shape the product.  I'd give our users a weight of about 40%, with the rest made up of what we think, what our corporate customers want, and the market.”  That tells me you make your decisions in a smoke filled room looking into your crystal ball trying to figure out the market direction without the benefit of objective information.  We regular members don’t have any tangible input and there isn’t any independent market research being done.

If you go back over my posts in this thread you will see that I am in total agreement with your vision of any media anytime anywhere.  I think you should be in video and any other media that the market demand is for.  What I am trying to get across to you is that you need to invest in some good independent market research that gives you an objective view of what the market demand is.  I’ve tried to help you with this by referring one company that could help you do just that.

The second point is I’ve shown you one plugin (iZotope) that has generated over 300,000 downloads.  Could you use 300,000 more customers?  Who can’t?  I’ll tell you what, make iZotope a product offering and send me the commissions for selling iZotope and you keep the license fees and upgrade fees.  If I had that kind of info, I would be on the plane today to cut a deal with iZotope. 

Jim, you need to get rid of the NIH (Not Invented Here) Syndrome.  Look around at the other competing products and see what they are offering that you are not.  You have the opportunity to build MC into a mainstream product by working with hardware vendors too.  (See previous posts.)  My input is for your benefit and my own.  I like MC, it does most of what I want to do and it provides me with features that I am not using now but I will expand into over time.  I want to see you still around in a couple of years so you can celebrate your 30th anniversary and the 40th too.  You are in a very small club of successful entrepreneurs who survive more than 5 years.  I would love to see you become wildly successful.  I have been building companies for over 30 years and it really irks me when they don’t take the next step to understand market direction and demand.  It’s your company do what you want.

There is an old saying, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.  I’ve given you $25,000 worth of advice, use it.  It’s on me.

It’s good to see more people posting their thoughts on this subject I hope more will post their thoughts too.

Tunetyme

[JimH]

Matt and I had a talk about this thread earlier today.  Here's where the discussion led.

We do what we do because we love it.  It's that simple.  

Other people might see that as foolish.  I don't.  I am so proud of the product we've made and of our team.  It is a privilege to have been able to devote my life to something I love and that brings pleasure to so many people.  

Our customers continually amaze me with their intelligence and creativity, and there is a spirit of generosity and civility on this forum that is inspiring.  So many individuals have given so much.  This is a global community with all kinds of backgrounds and viewpoints, but we all love the world that our media represents to us.  For me, Media Center is this world.

Mary Poppins

[CMiner]

FWIW, one more customer who uses MC strictly for music.  I've never even tried using it for anyting else, nor do I expect to.  A stripped down, music-only version would suit me just fine.

[Alex B]

I am not going to comment the business related part of this discussion now.

However, IMHO, in order to accomplish some useful improvements to the audio part a couple of mentioned things could be discussed more and actually implemented.

Re-rip

- often requested and currently too complex for most users.

As said many times before, a wizard that would automate the process would be most welcomed. It would also be easy to advertise and something that the other programs don't offer yet. The needed steps that would need to be automated are quite well described in the thread that was already linked earlier: http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=49951.

iZotope Ozone

- is for adding various DSP adjustments to the audio signal. I guess most users are happy with MC's built-in adjustments. However, there is one thing that I noticed about the OzoneMP version. It can store file specific settings when it is used with certain players.

For the EQ part this was possible in MC with scthom's EQdb plugin before MC's plugin interface changed during the MC13 development cycle. Here is one of the EQdb threads: http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=40270.0
I used it with many albums that are mastered with EQ settings that differ considerably of what can be considered as "normal flat EQ" and for storing file specific volume adjustments (by using the Pre-amp slider in the EQ panel).

It would be great if MC would provide a simple one-click method for storing the current file specific DSP settings that would be automatically set on playback when a corresponding player option is enabled. In addition to the EQ settings it would be nice if it could store also some other DSP settings for further adjusting the audio output.

Actually, it could have a separate "file DSP" window so that, for example, it would be possible to use file specific EQ settings in addition to the global EQ settings that are set to correct the speakers or room acoustics.

During playback MC would then automatically combine the stored file specific values with the possibly set global values and use the combined DSP settings.

[tunetyme]

Matt and I had a talk about this thread earlier today.  Here's where the discussion led.

We do what we do because we love it.  It's that simple.  

Other people might see that as foolish.  I don't.  I am so proud of the product we've made and of our team.  It is a privilege to have been able to devote my life to something I love and that brings pleasure to so many people.  

Jim, I do not think you and Matt are foolish.  You have a very good product and people provide input to try to help you make it even better.  You have good reasons to be proud of this product.  It begs the question that if you had two or three times the revenue wouldn't that give you the resources to make it a truly world class product?

Tunetyme

[tunetyme]

Alex B

Why not become the fourth player authorized to sell iZotope?  It would easier to implement and generate new revenue and customers at the same time.

Tunetyme

[glynor]

I didn't bother absolutely wading through every single post in this thread... However, I just wanted to take a second to voice an alternate opinion.

The repeated "assumption" above is that most people use MC mostly for Music.  Perhaps, but perhaps not.  Previous polling on this issue does NOT support that conclusion.  It is difficult to gauge user opinion, though.  Even if you did a more broadly based poll in the application itself, many users would only self-select and respond to the poll if they have strong opinions about the poll subject matter (and the rest would click  the "Stop bothering me" checkbox).

Either way... I'm a perfect counter-example to your assumption.  I would not purchase MC for music organization alone.  Period.  While I wouldn't be happy with my other choices, I would use something free if it were a music-only application, rather than pay for MC.  To be crystal clear... The only way you're going to pry $50 out of my hands is to handle all of my media, but especially to offer powerful video organization features.  Everything else can be handled by a free alternative (not nearly as well, but passably).

I use MC for many media types, but I'd rank them roughly in this order of importance for my everyday use:
1. Video
2. Music
3. Images
4. Misc (Documents and other file types)

I suspect that there are a ton of other users just like me.  So, I'd dispute totally the presumption that the "core product" of MC is music organization.  I'd say the "core product" is MEDIA organization.  The beauty of MC is that it treats all media types equally.  If it did not, I'd take my business elsewhere.

My only point here is that you should check your assumptions.  Just because it used to be so, does not mean it still is.  In the "music organizer" space, MC is now competing with a bunch of FREE products, so they need to tread lightly and carry a bunch of other added value.

We do what we do because we love it.  It's that simple. 

Other people might see that as foolish.  I don't.  I am so proud of the product we've made and of our team.  It is a privilege to have been able to devote my life to something I love and that brings pleasure to so many people.

And it shows, Jim and Matt.  Thank you all.

[tunetyme]

TT,
I split this off because it seems you're suggesting upgrades to the music features in MC that would have broad appeal to music centric users.

Please suggest a few.  We scratch our heads daily about this.

Glynor:

It might benefit you to read through this whole thread.  When you look at 13 & 14 their have not been any substantial improvements in the music portion of the program. 

As for paying 40 or 50 bucks for MC over a free player, I did and so did a lot of others who have posted here.  All we are trying to do is bring it to Jim and Matt's attention that there are a number of improvements that can be made to the music portion of MC.  Some of those suggestions are directed to help them expand their market share as well. 

I expect to expand into other areas of MC in time.  Right now I am focused on my music.  Those who are primarily music users have no apparent incentive to upgrade at this time.  How does that benefit JRiver?

Not everybody who has posted here share your view that an integrated product is the only way to get people to part with their cash.   Right now I have 4 music programs to do what I need.  Some are because requests have been made to make some changes in MC but they have fallen on deaf ears.

Everyone agrees that MC is a very good product.  We want to be better.  Don't you?

Tunetyme

[Alex B]

When you look at 13 & 14 their have not been any substantial improvements in the music portion of the program.

I remember spending numerous hours with testing the new audio related features during the MC13 and MC14 (still ongoing) development.

I think MC13 and MC14 are  in many ways better audio programs than MC12. Personally I kind of skipped MC12. I maintained my big main library with MC11.1 during the complete MC12 development cycle despite the fact that I installed and tested about 500 MC12 builds. There was always something small that I didn't quite like and I postponed the move.

Only in MC13 all those things were finally fixed (at the same time).

I moved the main library to MC14 very early because of the better audio file tagging and format compatibilty and because this time the implemented changes seem to work fine without causing any regression or problems in other parts of the program.

I think the audio related feature set is quite complete now and in my opinion the best thing to do would be to fine tune the UI usability, file and tag format support and compatibility with other programs and devices.

Regarding my "mostly music" usage the audio part has the highest priority because of the big amount of music files and music metadata. I have a fully tagged library of 74,000+ audio files with lots of custom fields. It also contains statistics starting from the year 2002.

I have only a few hundred imported video files and probably I could as well just use Windows Explorer for handling them. However, naturally I prefer to use MC's familiar database for video and other media types too.

[gappie]

When you look at 13 & 14 their have not been any substantial improvements in the music portion of the program. 

ofcource, i agree. and you know what. the 'music portion' of mc 12 is free available. its called mj 12. and it is a real nice program for audio organizing and playback. its not a payable module, its free.

but then again, thv has improved a lot, does that belong to the music portion, and the remote part, and the library server, the recent changes to dsp studio?

for me the music part is by far the most important part, and the reason why i started to use mc. that the database also can do my images and video is just a great extra. im not rich or ceo, but my music is so important to me that i would love to pay 50$ a year just to know that some guys are keeping an eye on this techie stuff so my database and files are still useable in the next decenium and at a high level. that in the mean time they are also working on better image and video handling is a bargain.

oh well.. and i like the bussiness model.

 
gab

[keither]

Personally, as an audio-only user, I'm happy to see that the MC folks are indeed amenable to feedback when people ask for it specifically.  In the last few months, VST support was added - that's a HUGE step forward.  The ability to have multiple Now Playing views open from different zones - HUGE.  Cue in-out points - heck, that was a nice one even though I haven't been able to upgrade to MC14 yet to take advantage of it.

I think a lot of it has to do with the squeaky wheel principle, and whether the requests relate to something the product is doing or whether it's something another product is doing.

Wasn't WASAPI added recently, too?  (I haven't even looked at it, so I have no idea what it is or what it does.)

[johnd126]

Why would not most people like to have all the music, video and image functionality in one application??

Invariably the split-headed beasts have to make compromises that make some (or all) of the features less useful (slower, less feature rich, etc.) than standalone products.

[tunetyme]

Everyone:

I hope you will consider the business discussion as an unfortunate sidebar. 

The purpose of this thread is to discuss improvements to the music portion of the software.  It might be beneficial if someone knowledgable about video could start another thread with that as its' topic and any other portion of the software that users may have suggestions for improvements.

The objective here is to provide quality input that Jim & Matt can put their hands around.  For example, many of us have tried different music software and if there is some feature that you find particularly good, then share it with the rest of us.  There may be other things that could benefit from a little tweaking, share that as well.  We all want to help build this software into the best there is.

Thank-you for all your input.

Tunetyme

[JimH]

Thank you.

[tunetyme]

No thanks needed. 

I really want this thread to stay on task and provide meaningful input.

With that said, here is an interesting article on the ufture of music and some of the reason I would like to see iZotope as a plugin.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/the-future-of-music

Tunetyme

[Listener]

I’ve given you $25,000 worth of advice, use it.  It’s on me.

An example of hyper-inflation!  Just yesterday that advice won't have been worth 2 cents.

Commenting on your experience as a user is valid and so is describing what you want to see as an individual customer.  Giving condescending sermons on marketing is not useful to anybody.

Bill

[glynor]

When you look at 13 & 14 their have not been any substantial improvements in the music portion of the program.  

I don't agree at all.  There have been substantial music-related changes since MC12.

Either way, I don't see why pitting one "goal" against another is relevant or helpful.  As Jim said... Say what specifically you want added or changed that is music-related.  I won't really complain if they spend a bit of development time on music-related enhancements, if you have something specific you need/want and that makes sense.

In the end, all I was doing was breaking up the "echo chamber" a bit.  I do not agree with either basic premise of this thread:

1. That the "music" portion of MC is fundamental above and beyond other media types.  I think all media types should be treated equally.
2. That "most" users value music over all other functions of MC.  This may be true for a cadre of users, yes, but I do not think they are the majority.  Either way, there has been no evidence one way or the other, and no effective way to find out (short of hiring a polling firm that knows how to do it).

I skimmed enough of the thread that I understood that these were the underlying arguments.  At least those that I felt it was relevant and necessary to comment on.  Take it or leave it, but that's what I think.

[tunetyme]

Let me try to provide an example of one feature that I would find beneficial.  I keep a copy of dbPoweramp for some of their database features.  In particular exporting data.  I can format the output in any field sequence.  It will do it in html or a flat file or a comma separated flat file.  All the options are right there. 

With MC, if I dump my database in an html format, I can’t read it because of “illegal characters” in Excel and Word.  Note pad will open the file but when I try to find the illegal characters they are not at the line number specified.  I have no way to identify where the problem lies.

The advantage of being able import the information into Excel or Access is that there are a lot of tools that I can use to analyze the data.  I can merge it with other information such as “Key” information from other sources.  I can track song pairings (songs that work well together based on beat, key, mood sometimes referred to as the color of a song and instrumentation.)  These are some of the things I use to build my playlists.

AlexB, perhaps you will add some of your thoughts on the information you track on your music database.     

[Matt]

The advantage of being able import the information into Excel or Access

You can copy and paste from Media Center to Excel.

You can export any list or the whole library as XML or a text delimited file.  

Text delimited export allows field selection and ordering.

It seems like a pretty complete set of options to me, but if there are specific enhancements or formats you need, please start a thread.  Our goal has always been to make it easy to get data in and out of the program.

[tunetyme]

That's great.  The only option I have been able to find is under file, library, export to xml.  What am I missing?

[Matt]

That's great.  The only option I have been able to find is under file, library, export to xml.  What am I missing?

Menu > File > Export Playlist...

[tunetyme]

That's great.  I would never have looked there.  I will play with it this afternoon.

[vagskal]

Our goal has always been to make it easy to get data in and out of the program.

Does this mean that we can expect support for multiple tags/comments in flac files as per the Vorbis comments standard any time soon?

I am a new user that bought MC 14 after having tested other available music management software. I found the UI and the speed and adaptability of the database in MC 14 to suit me the best. The ability to import custom fields from the tags was also very important for my decision (and I only later found out that MC has "occupied" quite a lot of tag names in a manner that prevents me from importing custom tags with the same name). I currently only use MC as a database for the information in my music files and as a tagging tool (and for occasional playback for mostly tagging purposes). For ripping (dbPoweramp), replay gain (Foobar or dbPoweramp), advanced tagging (MP3Tag) and playback on my Squeezeboxes (muso or Moose) I currently use other software.

Personally I do not want or need one multimedia software for all types of media. What I would like is instead one (1) software that is best for all music management tasks, but I have not yet found the ideal software or a company I trust that has that vision/goal. From the answers from company representatives in this thread I deduct that JRiver unfortunately does not have such ambitions. Too bad, since I find that MC already, for my needs, is the best music management software on the market.

The single most important enhancement, or, in my view, bug fix, would for me be the ability to read/write multiple tags/comments in flac files. A music management software that cannot handle all information about, for instance, artists and composers in correctly tagged music files is in my opinion crippled. And the freeware Foobar can do that as can at least one competing commercial music management software.

Other welcome enhancements (or bug fixes) would for me be:

1. Unlocking the occupied database field names so that any tag can be imported into any field and letting the user have more control over into which tag altered/entered data from the database fields are written for different file formats. There should also be an option to have the database always synced with the actual tags (i.e. have the command "Update from tags" also delete fields/data in the database which are not present in the tags). Better support for list type fields and custom field delimiters.

2. Support (calculation and) writing of replay gain - track and album - into the the tags as per today's de facto standard. Most other competing software can do that.

3. Native support for, at least, sending music to Squeezebox players and preferably even better integration with SqueezeCenter (syncing different players, adding music to a playlist in different manners, showing the song playing on the Squeezeboxes etc.). Collect automatically and show in MC in MC additional information about the song now playing, i.a. artist biography/photos, album review, tour schedule, lyrics etc. Charge extra for this, if necessary. Compare for a sketch the muso album browser for SqueezeCenter.

4. Add support for AccurateRip and tagging from AllMusic Guide (for an additional payment if necessary) like dbPoweramp has. If you do that, and what is said about replay gain in 2 above, I would use MC also for ripping.

5. Introduce macros, that the user can save and easily reuse, for common tagging operations. The freeware MP3Tag has that ability.

6. The ability to show and handle in MC the char-set used for the music file.

(Sorry if some of the features requested already exist in MC. In that case please tell me where they are.)

[tunetyme]

vagskal:

I think we all agree that MC is the best music management software available.  The purpose of this thread is identify additional features that may be beneficial to users.  I can't help you with your technical questions but I am curious as to what additional info you store.  Are your files flac, mp3 or both?

Tunetyme

[Lasse_Lus]

5. Introduce macros, that the user can save and easily reuse, for common tagging operations. The freeware MP3Tag has that ability.

confishy introduced macro/auto tagging a while ago

dave, with confishy's autotagger superduper plugin you can accomplish this with a mouseclick 

and you also have "Mr excellent" aka MC1x.exe to simplify your tasks http://wiki.jrmediacenter.com/index.php/Media_Center_Core_Commands

[vagskal]

vagskal:

I think we all agree that MC is the best music management software available.  The purpose of this thread is identify additional features that may be beneficial to users.  I can't help you with your technical questions but I am curious as to what additional info you store.  Are your files flac, mp3 or both?

Tunetyme

I have only flac and mp3 files. I do not have that much extra information stored in the tags. My main concern is instead that I cannot in an easy way get pretty standard Vorbis comments into the appropriate field in MC, the field where the corresponding data for mp3 files is stored. A couple of examples are the Vorbis comments ALBUMARTIST and DISCNUMBER as written nowadays by dbPoweramp upon ripping. I cannot get the data in those comments into the database fields Album Artist and Disc#, where the album artist and disc number information from mp3 files are stored. Hence I must use some kind of workaround to merge the standard field with a custom field to show in MC, for instance, album artist information for all my files. Furthermore, for the standard fields MC will not let me choose which tag to write in the file. The data in the Album Artist field will for instance be written to both the TPE2 tag and a TXXX tag AlbumArtist in mp3 files. (Sorry, if this went further OT than my original posting, but you did ask what additional information I store.)

And I did suggest at least a couple of additional audio related features with references to other software (items 3-5).

Lasse_Lus: Thanks for the hints.

[tunetyme]

I have no idea if this will work, but if you created a new field in the MC database with the exact same field name in your tag and selected update library from tags it might work.  I've never tried but that is what comes to mind.

Like you I have been using dbPoweramp for some things as well.  I've learned how to use a feature in MC (listed above) that may eliminate my need to use it anymore.  That will be one less thing for me to maintain.

I agree that working with some of the hardware vendors would be beneficial for them and MC.  Compatibility or seamless integration benefits all of us.  I've looked at squeezebox and some of the other wireless boxes but I haven't pulled the trigger.  I noticed that both MacIntosh and Pioneer have receivers that will play flac files.  It may be another year before the technology matures.

[vagskal]

I have no idea if this will work, but if you created a new field in the MC database with the exact same field name in your tag and selected update library from tags it might work.  I've never tried but that is what comes to mind.

For the example with ALBUMARTIST and DISCNUMBER this will result in database fields with those names. Then I have regarding album artists one database field for the flac files (Albumartist, not connected to the calculated Album Artist (auto) field) and for the mp3 files another database field (Album Artist, connected to the calculated Album Artist (auto) field). I would still have to apply a workaround if I want to have a column or pane with all album artists (flac + mp3), which of course is a basic feature for a music management software. I would also have to remember which field to enter data in or edit for the different file formats. Furthermore, the useful Album Artist (auto) field would not be populated with information from the flac files, but often show Various Artists as the album artist although an album artist is actually set for the album. This means I will have to apply yet another workaround to have a column or pane with just the genuine VA albums.

In other cases the proposed method does not work at all because there is already a standard database field with the same name as the tag (where the field is not mapped to your tag but a tag with some other name). An example is the TXXX Mood tag in mp3 files, which is written when tagging  from AMG using dbPoweramp. Since there already is a standard database field named Mood which is not mapped to that tag, there is simply no way to import the information in that tag into MC since you cannot create a second database field with the name Mood. (I have made an enhancement request regarding this and some other issues: http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=53022.msg361273#msg361273).

Edit: Now I noticed that you have added a couple of paragraphs to your reply. As regards the comments on Squeezeboxes: The software controlling the hardware Squeezeboxes (called SqueezCenter) is open source so there is really no need to strike a deal or even co-operate with the SqueezeBox company (now Logitech). SqueezeBoxes can play flac files over a wireless connection and sync several players. I consider the currently available range of SqueezeBoxes to be mature products.

[Beth UK]

I think I am joining this thread a little late but I am another registered user who uses MC for audio only. I take a lot of photographs but use other software for managing my library of 30,000 or so images.

I have upgraded MC now for several versions but wonder why, for example, it is still impossible to upload ipod play stats to Last FM? As a music lover I link in to Last FM partly for the chance to share with other music lovers, and also to discover new music. It is frustrating that with all the new development in 'other' areas of MC it still does not 'link in' with Last FM in this way. There is other software I know that could do this but that really would defeat my objective of having all my music functionality in one place. For that reason I still look at other Music Management options.

Don't get me wrong, I love the look and feel of MC - but is isn't perfect yet. I don't watch internet TV, and rarely play video on my PC... I just want it to be better in the audio area. (which of course is just my own view - other people will differ).

[ruze]

I'd like to pitch in and agree that I believe success is from focus, focus, focus on the core product which is audio.  That is what I purchase MC for.  I'd like to turn off the Images, Video and Documents options in the main Panes view (and I'm sure it is possible).

I'd love to see better harmonic analysis type functionality as voiced by the OP, and music management functions in general.  How great would it be to auto-generate a playlist which flows from one song to another in a natural way.  Also, seamless client-server and mobile-server transparency are key.  I have a single master set of music but like to play it elsewhere and sync tag changes.  For mobile, I copy it to an external USB drive but would like to see ratings, etc changes synced back transparently.

Off Topic: With finite resources working on the problem, it's sure easier to create the best audio player in the world than a really good audio/pictures/video player.  It might also be easier to open new sales channels into the existing audio space than gaining new customers in pictures and video spaces.  "Line extension" is the marketing term for creating new functionality in order to address new market spaces (without any hint of trying to sound condescending), and it is the first thing warned against in marketing.  Defending and growing the core market is much more likely to lead to real success in the marketplace.  Sorry for the diversion but just wanted to add my vote to the core competency argument.  At least segmenting into audio-only and audio+media would give you some free customer feedback based on dollars actually spent.

[Alex B]

For the example with ALBUMARTIST and DISCNUMBER this will result in database fields with those names. Then I have regarding album artists one database field for the flac files (Albumartist, not connected to the calculated Album Artist (auto) field) and for the mp3 files another database field (Album Artist, connected to the calculated Album Artist (auto) field). I would still have to apply a workaround if I want to have a column or pane with all album artists (flac + mp3), which of course is a basic feature for a music management software. I would also have to remember which field to enter data in or edit for the different file formats. Furthermore, the useful Album Artist (auto) field would not be populated with information from the flac files, but often show Various Artists as the album artist although an album artist is actually set for the album. This means I will have to apply yet another workaround to have a column or pane with just the genuine VA albums.

In other cases the proposed method does not work at all because there is already a standard database field with the same name as the tag (where the field is not mapped to your tag but a tag with some other name). An example is the TXXX Mood tag in mp3 files, which is written when tagging  from AMG using dbPoweramp. Since there already is a standard database field named Mood which is not mapped to that tag, there is simply no way to import the information in that tag into MC since you cannot create a second database field with the name Mood. (I have made an enhancement request regarding this and some other issues: http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=53022.msg361273#msg361273).

The tagging issues are difficult because of the lack of commonly accepted standards. ID3v2 tries to do that, but since it doesn't have defined tags for fields like Album Artist, Mood or Replay Gain values different programs may use different tags. The Vorbis comments are perhaps even more varied because only a few basic fields are recommended by xiph.org.

My opinion has been that generally speaking only the basic fields that are included in usual on-line CD databases like FreeDB and JRiver's YADB must be universally compatible from a program to another, however naturally it would be better if more tags were compatible across various programs.

Since MC is a database based program the highest priority has been in the library metadata that can be used with any media format regardless of the possibly existing file tagging support. The individual audio input plugins have been developed to support reading and storing tags when possible, but as you have noticed the system is not perfect for everyone and probably will never be because of the varied user expectations.

Regarding to the ALBUMARTIST vs Album Artist issue as well you could ask why the other programs don't use use the latter or allow to select what to use. Two other popular programs that support FLAC natively, Winamp and Foobar, use Album Artist similarly like MC.

I agree that it would be nice if MC would allow to freely link any library field with any file tag, but the system and user interface would probably be very complex. Each library field would need to have a configuration panel that supports the four different tagging formats that are used in the seven different input plugins (MP3, FLAC, APE, WMA, Ogg Vorbis, Musepack).

EDIT

...and WavPack (was missing from input plugin list).

[tjobbins]

I'm all for Audio improvements.  But video is also important for me, and I hope it continues to improve.   My HTPC is my sole source for both audio and video - I use it for DVD playback, but even more often I use it for video files in various formats including XVID and MKV.

I guess I can see the point behind the modular idea, because I use audio and video, but not TV or images.  But I think $50 is great value for a program that does audio + video so well, and it's good to know the other features are there if I want them later.  In fact I've spent well over $150 myself, having first bought MC 9 and upgraded to every release to date, and I think it's been money very well spent.

One of the great things about MC is that it does so many things well.  There are already other specialist programs out there in various niches and it's much better to have a single program managing everything.  I remember a while ago investigating Girder for remote contrl, and some other program I can't remember the name of which was a Theater View equivalent, with designable screens etc.  It was all good, but the effort of getting it all working together was just more than I could ever be bothered with.  With MC now having its own remote control, and Theater View being greatly enhanced, I can have a single piece of software for everything.  In fact apart from codecs, MC is basically the only software installed on my HTPC.

i do agree that MC should try to tackle some niche features.  But features in all areas. There's time enough to add plenty more great features in future releases, and I think MC is doing a good job of catering to all.  So for example there's been a lot of work on TV playback in 13 and 14 which doesn't interest me greatly, but both releases have still been great for me, adding lots of things I really wanted.  Jim says that sales are good, so J River have the resources to continue improving and expanding the software in all aspects, and there's really no need to limit it.

[Sauzee]

A common thread here seems to be that many people who use MC primarily for audio actually require photo/video/tv functionality too, but use other software which better meets their needs in that area.

I too use other photo and video software and still think MC lags behind in these areas. I get the impression that it might never catch up in these areas. As for music management MC is very strong, but other music software is improving and its frustrating that MC improvements in this area are relatively minor.

Whilst there is quite a lot of innovation in other music management software going on right now, I get the feeling that MC guys have run out of inspiration/ideas here. Jim said as much in a post of his where he said they scratched their heads everyday looking for ways to improve the music side.