Print

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

[6233638]

Track linking only seems to work if you play the first track rather than any of them.
If you link a whole album for example, only Track #1 will play everything.

[Matt]

Track linking only seems to work if you play the first track rather than any of them.
If you link a whole album for example, only Track #1 will play everything.

That's how linking works.  The first track has the link to the next track, and that track has a link to the next track, etc. 

So start in the middle and only the middle on gets linked.

[6233638]

That's how linking works.  The first track has the link to the next track, and that track has a link to the next track, etc. 
 
So start in the middle and only the middle on gets linked.

Ah I see. I was adding the last track, expecting the full list to be added.
I have to be honest, I don't find it very useful in its current implementation. The link should apply both ways.
 
If Track #2 is the second half of Track #1
Or Tracks 1-4 are movements of the same symphony

It should not be possible to play Track #2 without Track #1, or the third movement without the first, second, and fourth when linked.

[glynor]

It should not be possible to play Track #2 without Track #1, or the third movement without the first, second, and fourth when linked.

I see where you're coming from, but I'd actually prefer an escape valve of some kind.

So, if I link the "medley" tracks in Abbey Road, I'd generally want them all to play.  But, if I specifically add She Came In Through the Bathroom Window to some kind of Playlist, I would not want that "expanded".

Of course, I don't know that this is even ideal, because what I really want linking to do is to "fix" Smartlists (and Radio) so that when they might auto-select a single track like this, so that they choose all of them as one song, rather than just the one.  Fixing computer-generated shuffles, in other words, not "overriding" my explicit user intent.  And, what about in my example above when I really do want to play just Mean Mr Mustard?  That happens to be the first track in the medley, so it now can't be played alone?

Not sure how to solve all of the problems.  

[6233638]

Not sure how to solve all of the problems.  

Per-zone preference for how to play linked tracks? (Full/Partial/Off)
 
If there was a visual indicator for tracks which are linked together, something like "Add track (unlinked)" might also work as an override for the zone?

[glynor]

If there was a visual indicator for tracks are linked together, something like "Add track (unlinked)" might also work as an override for the zone?

I like this.  Use the existing Stack Icon column, and give us a chain link icon instead.

Then, essentially, all of my other concerns go away.

[6233638]

I like this.  Use the existing Stack Icon column, and give us a chain link icon instead.
Then, essentially, all of my other concerns go away.

My only concern is how to indicate which tracks are linked.
If 1-3, and 4-8 are linked together, you don't want a row of 8 chain icons that are the same.
 
I was actually thinking of something more like a background color rather than links, so the theme could specify link colors 1,2,3,4 or perhaps just use one color with variable opacity.
Maybe an icon is the better solution, I'm not sure.

[glynor]

I thought of that when you initially posted the suggestion, but I think this is an edge case not worth worrying about.  I think, for the vast majority of uses, it'll be like what I described above (a medley song broken into tracks), live sets, classical compositions, and other things that are created as once piece, but (for whatever reason) have "chapters" that show up as tracks.  Your scenario does happen with classical compositions, of course, but that's kind of a niche of a niche:

I was actually thinking of something more like a background color rather than links, so the theme could specify link colors 1,2,3,4

Oh, like a unicorn puked on it.  That'll look nice.   

See that's where it gets ugly.  If you insist on that, how about:  Show the link icon to indicate linked/non-linked status.  When the user selects any file in a linked set, MC "dim highlights" the other tracks in the set.

But, alas:

The first track has the link to the next track, and that track has a link to the next track, etc. 

In the database, each file only knows it is linked to one track, or not (it is a binary state).  It does not have a list of its entire link set.  Since Stacks do not work that way (the Stack Top has the list of all members of the Stack), it isn't like this is impossible for the MC database to do...

Therefore, it was likely an intentional design decision for some reason or another.  So, we might only be able to see a binary linked/non-linked status indicator based on the architecture.

You can ask them to change the architecture, but... It goes back to is that an edge case?

[6233638]

I thought of that when you initially posted the suggestion, but I think this is an edge case not worth worrying about.  I think, for the vast majority of uses, it'll be like what I described above (a medley song broken into tracks), live sets, classical compositions, and other things that are created as once piece, but (for whatever reason) have "chapters" that show up as tracks.  Your scenario does happen with classical compositions, of course, but that's kind of a niche of a niche: http://glynor.com/img/etc/Linking_Concerns_Venn_Joke.png

Point made.
Thinking about it more, I like the idea of a linked chain icon in the "Stack Icon" field (but can items in a stack be linked?) especially if combined with your highlighting suggestion.

Oh, like a unicorn puked on it.  That'll look nice.  

I thought you were a Mac user.
Understandable though - just seemed like it might be a clearer indicator of status, but I really wasn't sure about whether or not it would be a good idea.
I was thinking monochrome with alternating levels of opacity like the list backgrounds for example.

See that's where it gets ugly.  If you insist on that, how about:  Show the link icon to indicate linked/non-linked status.  When the user selects any file in a linked set, MC "dim highlights" the other tracks in the set.

That would be a nice way to handle it and it's what I was imagining when I made the suggestion. (should have been more clear about it)
The clicked track would be selected and the linked tracks would have say a 30% opacity selection as an indicator.
 

You can ask them to change the architecture, but... It goes back to is that an edge case?

I would think that most people would expect track links to work from any track rather than the selected track down.
 
Rather than two tracks back-to-back, I'd think it would be part 1 and part 2 of a "track" where the second doesn't make sense to be played on its own.

That's why I suggested a per-zone preference for link behavior (full/partial/off, with partial being the current behavior) and an "Add track (unlinked)" or "Add selection (unlinked)" option.
I think those options would cover everything.

[glynor]

Point made.
Thinking about it more, I like the idea of a linked chain icon in the "Stack Icon" field (but can items in a stack be linked?) especially if combined with your highlighting suggestion.

I thought of that, but you could just have a third icon option that is the stack thingy with a little chain link or something attached to it.  Speaking of which, the current Stack Icon doesn't look anything like something that might represent a "stack" of something.

It looks like an arrow widget control, which matches the way they "work" but doesn't really represent what they are.  I think a hamburger icon of some kind would be better.

[glynor]

I thought you were a Mac user.
Understandable though - just seemed like it might be a clearer indicator of status, but I really wasn't sure about whether or not it would be a good idea.
I was thinking monochrome with alternating levels of opacity like the list backgrounds for example.

Hahaha!!! 

But, it is exactly an Apple-user who would care about how it looks, and find the screenshot you posted too gross to ever use.  But some jerk out there (probably a Windows user in disguise, like me) will do that to your beautiful OS if you give them the color gun.

Which is exactly why Apple has long been incredibly conflicted about the labels functionality.  It is old-school MacOS, naturally, so they can't take it away or the John Siracusa's of the world will scream bloody murder (and they do anyway because you keep messing with it Apple).  But that's why it has sometimes been dots, and sometimes highlights, and keeps changing... Because Apple hates that screenshot.  The NeXT people do anyway. 

Oh, and it was built on a crazy infrastructure, and still (to this day in the current implementation in Mavericks) has some bizarre throwbacks to days of yore.

I would think that most people would expect track links to work from any track rather than the selected track down.
 
Rather than two tracks back-to-back, I'd think it would be part 1 and part 2 of a "track" where the second doesn't make sense to be played on its own.

That's why I suggested a per-zone preference for link behavior (full/partial/off, with partial being the current behavior) and an "Add track (unlinked)" or "Add selection (unlinked)" option.
I think those options would cover everything.

Yeah... I'm not so sure.  I think some people will think of it that way, and try to use it that way, but others want something simpler and less "aggressive".  I think we have to strike a happy medium.

If I explicitly select a particular item in the database, and play that item, it should play that item.  No exceptions.  I think they agree, which is why it works the way it does.  If I selected and double-clicked Polythene Pam and it plays You Never Give Me Your Money, regardless of cause, that "feels" broken.

I think their goal was simpler: To allow it not to "shuffle away" but to instead auto-add the rest of the "linked tracks" (while still starting where you told it to start).  I'm also not too sure about the Zones solution.  I can imagine wanting to use both scenarios in a given Playing Now list, when DJ-ing or whatever.

So... I'm not sure, I guess.  But I definitely think it is worth discussing, and I'm not sold on the current implementation quite yet.

[6233638]

Mockup to give you an idea of what I'm thinking:



EDIT: well I suppose all of those would probably be linked into separate groups, but you get the idea for what a selection would be like with linked tracks.
 

But, it is exactly an Apple-user who would care about how it looks, and find the screenshot you posted too gross to ever use.  But some jerk out there (probably a Windows user in disguise, like me) will do that to your beautiful OS if you give them the color gun.

Yes, it's never something I've used myself, or seen a need for.

Speaking of which, the current Stack Icon doesn't look anything like something that might represent a "stack" of something.

It looks like an arrow widget control, which matches the way they "work" but doesn't really represent what they are.  I think a hamburger icon of some kind would be better.

Anything but a hamburger menu

Yeah... I'm not so sure.  I think some people will think of it that way, and try to use it that way, but others want something simpler and less "aggressive".  I think we have to strike a happy medium.

Well that's why I suggested a per-zone preference for the feature.

[glynor]

Anything but a hamburger menu

Not a hamburger menu, I just mean the icon.  The little triangle thing in the wierdly 3D box isn't a "stack" of anything.

[jctcom]

If they actually get it working so that linked tracks will play together in order no matter if it is the 1st , last or something in between then I presume there will have to be something along the lines of "Linked Forward", "Linked both directions" and "Linked Backwards". somewhere in the database.  So how about a simple corresponding column with icons such as:

Forward:  

Both:      

Backward:

Simple and should make it easy to see which tracks go with what etc...

Carl.

[glynor]

Well that's why I suggested a per-zone preference for the feature.

I don't like the per-zone suggestion.

I can imagine a bunch of places where I'd want to have a playlist mixed, and include an entire medley over here, but only a single "track" of this seamless DJ mix over here.  In one Playing Now list.

So I'm not sure that's a solution.

[6233638]

I don't like the per-zone suggestion.

I can imagine a bunch of places where I'd want to have a playlist mixed, and include an entire medley over here, but only a single "track" of this seamless DJ mix over here.  In one Playing Now list.

So I'm not sure that's a solution.

Doesn't the "Add track (unlinked)" option cover that?
Links seem to be evaluated when you add a track, not when you play it.
 
EDIT: Nevermind, links are evaluated every time a list is updated.

[glynor]

If they actually get it working so that linked tracks will play together in order no matter if it is the 1st , last or something in between then I presume there will have to be something along the lines of "Linked Forward", "Linked both directions" and "Linked Backwards".

No, that suggests there would be three states, and there wouldn't be.

If it was implemented as some users have suggested, it would be basically just like Stacks.  Each member of a linked group would only need a pointer to the "Link Top" and then the Link Top would have a list of Link Group Members.

Linked or not would still be a binary state, but one of the link group members would know about all of the others.  That's exactly how Stacks work.

But, there seem to be two quasi-competing viewpoints on this:

1. I want to make these 4 separate files work and act as though they were one solid FLAC file.
2. I want to make these 4 separate files to remain individually addressable, but to be aware of their part in a greater work.

I'm not 100% convinced that the two usage paradigms are compatible.  But, it does also seem like there is a solution to #1: You know, make them into a single file.

So....  

[glynor]

Doesn't the "Add track (unlinked)" option cover that?

It could, but I think they want that to be the default behavior.  As I said... If the user explicitly double-clicks on a particular database item, it plays that database item.

I'm not sure that's a bridge that can be passed.  But perhaps we can get 85% there, and then everyone will be a little unhappy (which seems like a pretty good indicator of "just right" in so many cases).

And, I guess, aside from Shuffles, I don't see where this happens so often.  I mean... Are you just sloppy about which file you choose to play?  I think shuffles are the biggest problem.

[jctcom]

No, that suggests there would be three states, and there wouldn't be.

If it was implemented as some users have suggested, it would be basically just like Stacks.  Each member of a linked group would only need a pointer to the "Link Top" and then the Link Top would have a list of Link Group Members.

Linked or not would still be a binary state, but one of the link group members would know about all of the others.  That's exactly how Stacks work.

But, there seem to be two quasi-competing viewpoints on this:

1. I want to make these 4 separate files work and act as though they were one solid FLAC file.
2. I want to make these 4 separate files to remain individually addressable, but to be aware of their part in a greater work.

I'm not 100% convinced that the two usage paradigms are compatible.  But, it does also seem like there is a solution to #1: You know, make them into a single file.

So....  

Yeah but wouldn't that completely remove the possibility of Option 2?  I would prefer that the tracks remain separate the way they existed in the original recording but get selected as a whole no matter which part got selected.  Besides the ability to rip tracks combined has been there for some time.  If you are going to go with option 1 why bother to introduce links at all?

If they can then make it work so that you can add a linked track "Unlinked" then that would be a bonus.  But I would like to see the links working properly as a priority.  and in my opinion they are only really working properly if the whole piece plays, (Whether it be classical, Prog, or just two or more tracks that an individual feels should be always played together), when any one of the parts is sent to a playlist however it got there.

Carl.

[kensn]

***Thinking.. Shouldn't Glynor be studying up on TV***  

[glynor]

in my opinion they are only really working properly if the whole piece plays, (Whether it be classical, Prog, or just two or more tracks that an individual feels should be always played together), when any one of the parts is sent to a playlist however it got there.

Well... You can't always get what you want, I suppose.  I don't know, I think that's a pretty black or white viewpoint, and the world is shades of grey.

To be clear, I'm with you right up until here:

however it got there.

That's a silly ultimatum.  However it got there?

If it is an auto-generated smartlist? Ok, with you.
If I double-click within a view to play a set of files, and Shuffle is enabled? Ok, with you.
If I play a playlist with a bunch of ordered tracks, and then Shuffle it? Ok, with you.
If it is something chosen by the Radio or Play Doctor features? Ok, with you.

But...

If I double-click on a particular item in MC, and it plays something else?  Yeah, not with you.

Under what reasonable circumstances would the user physically double click on a particular item, and not want MC to play (or Add or whatever if you've modified the defaults) that item right this instant?  And how, functionally, does it break a workflow to expect you to double-click on the first item in a Linked Group if you want the whole thing to play?  Assuming, of course, that MC shows you somehow which files are linked together, so you can easily distinguish them visually?

So, I'm definitely not in love with Add/Play (Unlinked).  Those options are BURIED in a maze of deep-down right click pop-over menus.  Especially if you have multiple zones.

Add/Play (All Linked)?  Sure!  That seems like the much more rare case, as long as all auto-generated smartlists (and similar functionality) could do the equivalent of that function automatically.

I realize it isn't "nice and clean" (it works one way for manual activation, and another for systematic activation), but it also matches user behavior more, I'd guess.

[glynor]

***Thinking.. Shouldn't Glynor be studying up on TV***  

I'm doing both.  I need a break every so often. 

[gappie]

If it is an auto-generated smartlist? Ok, with you.
If I double-click within a view to play a set of files, and Shuffle is enabled? Ok, with you.
If I play a playlist with a bunch of ordered tracks, and then Shuffle it? Ok, with you.
If it is something chosen by the Radio or Play Doctor features? Ok, with you.

But...

If I double-click on a particular item in MC, and it plays something else?  Yeah, not with you.

Under what reasonable circumstances would the user physically double click on a particular item, and not want MC to play (or Add or whatever if you've modified the defaults) that item right this instant?  And how, functionally, does it break a workflow to expect you to double-click on the first item in a Linked Group if you want the whole thing to play?  Assuming, of course, that MC shows you somehow which files are linked together, so you can easily distinguish them visually?

i agree that it should work this way. and that is how it works for me.. it is a bit more work to set up, but play doctor keeps the linked files together, smartlists too (if i say so), double clicking a file will play that file. and i can add some symbols to make clear if something is linked. like in the attachment (from playing doctor). now if it would work directly out of the box this way, that would be great, but in the mean time im enjoying the new link feature a lot.

http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=91792.0

 
gab

[6233638]

It could, but I think they want that to be the default behavior.  As I said... If the user explicitly double-clicks on a particular database item, it plays that database item.

Well there's nothing to say that the default state can't be the "partial" option which acts as things currently do, where it plays the currently selected track and any linked below it.
 

And, I guess, aside from Shuffles, I don't see where this happens so often.  I mean... Are you just sloppy about which file you choose to play?  I think shuffles are the biggest problem.

I would have thought that Play Doctor was the bigger issue, and in that zone I'd want to prevent it from ever playing a "partial" link.

[kstuart]

Why aren't these posts in the Stickied Linking thread ?

Why are there so many Stickied threads that it has become a "Crying Wolf" - i.e. everyone has ceased noticing what's in the Stickied threads ?

[6233638]

Why aren't these posts in the Stickied Linking thread ?

My initial post was in the bug reporting thread and it was split off.
I don't know if moderators/admins can merge topics.
 

Why are there so many Stickied threads that it has become a "Crying Wolf" - i.e. everyone has ceased noticing what's in the Stickied threads ?

It's not a new problem: http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=84118.0

[bblue]

Personally, I'm rather ambivalent about the extensions to linking described in this thread.  But I would really like the existing linking to be consistent in display.

If you link say, tracks #1 and #2 together and have the LINKS variable showing in tags, you'll see that track #1 will show no link whereas track #2 will show a database number link to #1.  You can't select track #1 to unlink it from #2, but you can select #2 to unlink it from #1.

Of course the link numbers doesn't do anyone but the program any good, but I digress.

Now if you link track #2 to track #3, suddenly all three tracks have link numbers.  And now you can select any one of the tracks to unlink it from the rest.

So why don't the first two tracks by themselves behave the same way?  It's confusing and inconsistent.  It seems if this much would be made consistent, i.e. any linked track showed a link number -- period --, you're only one step away from being about to make a smart-list of just linked tracks, or producing coloring or an icon that could display accordingly.  As it is now, you'd never see the first track in such a link list.

[glynor]

My initial post was in the bug reporting thread and it was split off.
I don't know if moderators/admins can merge topics.

I split it.  I considered merging it into that thread, but decided it might be better to have a separate thread about desired changes to the existing implementation, as opposed to questions about using it as-is.

If some other Admin disagrees, they can certainly merge it, or whatever.

[glynor]

I would have thought that Play Doctor was the bigger issue, and in that zone I'd want to prevent it from ever playing a "partial" link.

I was using "shuffle" generically there, and meant for it to include any "automated shuffled playlist" system.  Sorry it wasn't clear.

[jctcom]

Well... You can't always get what you want, I suppose.  I don't know, I think that's a pretty black or white viewpoint, and the world is shades of grey.

To be clear, I'm with you right up until here:

That's a silly ultimatum.  However it got there?

If it is an auto-generated smartlist? Ok, with you.
If I double-click within a view to play a set of files, and Shuffle is enabled? Ok, with you.
If I play a playlist with a bunch of ordered tracks, and then Shuffle it? Ok, with you.
If it is something chosen by the Radio or Play Doctor features? Ok, with you.

But...

If I double-click on a particular item in MC, and it plays something else?  Yeah, not with you.

Under what reasonable circumstances would the user physically double click on a particular item, and not want MC to play (or Add or whatever if you've modified the defaults) that item right this instant?  And how, functionally, does it break a workflow to expect you to double-click on the first item in a Linked Group if you want the whole thing to play?  Assuming, of course, that MC shows you somehow which files are linked together, so you can easily distinguish them visually?

So, I'm definitely not in love with Add/Play (Unlinked).  Those options are BURIED in a maze of deep-down right click pop-over menus.  Especially if you have multiple zones.

Add/Play (All Linked)?  Sure!  That seems like the much more rare case, as long as all auto-generated smartlists (and similar functionality) could do the equivalent of that function automatically.

I realize it isn't "nice and clean" (it works one way for manual activation, and another for systematic activation), but it also matches user behavior more, I'd guess.

Ok OK.  Hehe.  I may have been going a bit overboard with "However It Got There".  But what I am saying is that for the moment I would rather it be that way than the way it is right now.  If they make additional changes and can add some way to "Play Linked file as unlinked" or something like that I have no issues with that and of course it would be a good thing.

But if they are going to make only some requested changes now and some later.....  I would prefer the "However it got there"  (For now)  So that linked files for the most part will start playing the way I think most people  (Ok well me for sure but I am sure I am not alone!) imagined it would work.

Carl.