JJZolx;542753 Wrote: > It makes little sense to recognize multiple VA strings when you can > accomplish this with the COMPILATION field. I don't know how it > currently works (and 7.6 is very early in its development), but if the > logic permits COMPILATION=0 to override the recognition of the VA > string, then that would easily permit a user to defeat the behavior.
the reason is simple: a lot of other apps don't support the COMPILATION field, either reading or writing it (WMP, winamp, etc). if SBS is going to recognize one VA string, why not more? and by the same token, no string should be hardcoded as mandatory, (as is currently the case with 7.6 it seems). why force users to use/learn an app that supports comp tag editing, when they could just define strings in settings? its no different than "guess tag format." and i agree, explicit comp tags should over-ride string recognition (or anything else). and lets not conflate the recognition with the display. JJZolx;542753 Wrote: > I think this is a very unlikely assumption. Many (perhaps even most) > users use neither iTunes or another music manager for ripping or > tagging. Assuming that a given field is present (instead of handling > the many cases where it is not) is guaranteed to fail. the current logic is whats guaranteed to fail most often, or to put it another way, rendered moot. and to say [paraphrased] that "many/most users don't use itunes or ANY app for ripping or tagging," is i think, respectfully, prepostureous. it certainly begs the question how do they have digital music then? all major marketshare apps assign AA tags, except itunes which uses comp tags. in either case, the existing SBS VA detection is rendered moot. and the major marketshare apps are what most users use to create the rips, etc, that they will then bring to SBS. those users are who logitech is trying to sell to. i think its over 90%, but even if its 50% (and its not, but if it was) its still important to deal with that. please keep in mind, even though i think its a "vast minority" of users who actually need it, i still am saying that i think the current, existing VA logic should remain, even as the default; all i am asking is that it be optional. JJZolx;542753 Wrote: > If your #3 is true, then there's absolutely no reason to defeat the VA > logic. If you want to use explicit COMPILATION tags on everything, go > ahead and knock yourself out. its precisely because i DON'T want to use explicit comp tags AT ALL that i suggest this. its precisely that reason that i think the devs have made this move to begin with, as it certainly makes sense. and a reason to OPTIONALLY defeat the existing VA logic is that it will reduce scan times. additionally, it allows the user to decide which behavior they prefer. some users might want the library displayed the way it would be in the off position. -- MrSinatra www.lion-radio.org using: sb2 & sbc (my home) / sbr (parent's home) - sbs 7.5b - win xp pro sp3 ie8 - p4(ht) 3.2ghz / 2gig ram - 1tb wd usb2 raid1 - d-link dir-655 - 40k+ mp3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ MrSinatra's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=2336 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=78205 _______________________________________________ beta mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/beta
