DJanGo wrote: 
> You know that itunes integration sometimes broke, cause itunes had
> changed?
> You know that f*#!1ng Compilation Tag is a Itunes "Gummick"?

yes, i'm well aware that comp tags, which server relies heavily on, are
an apple fudge.  at this point, does it matter?  comp tags are in FLACs,
which apple doesn't even support in any meaningful way.  they are a de
facto standard now in almost all formats.  i personally have no need at
all for comp tags.  i add them to my stuff merely as a courtesy for
those who use my files with apple gear, (and to a much lesser extent, so
server will see what i want it to as comps).

and btw, itunes integration was often broken, which to me meant it
should have been removed, but they kept trying to use it regardless, b/c
they wanted that (big non-techie) market.

DJanGo wrote: 
> Didnt you wrote sometimes somewhere here " scan should be faster?" 
> If you add "all" possible and unpossible tags - you need much more time
> for scanning and a lot more brain for the database handling....

yes, the scanner should be faster, but i never said at the expense of
*sensible* usage.  that was in the context of me saying that for many,
if not most people, the VA detection logic was unnecessary and slowed
down the scanner, and caused other problems, all of which is true. 
(ergo, add a pref to turn it off to aid the scans)

the scanner should be as fast as is possible, while also getting the
sensible job done.  reading in all sensible tags to the DB is the job of
a music server.

(you could have a scanner pref for reading only basic tags into the DB,
vs all tags.  it would have to be decided what minimum tags are basic. 
i do wonder what the impact of difference to scan times would be between
the two?  would it be meaningful?)  

DJanGo wrote: 
> again its techie... but LibraryDemo is a very nice thing - my child
> loves the things i do with that.

what exactly does it do?

using:  win7 64 + lms 7.9 & duet & ipads w/the logitech app, and ipeng
on an ipod &
BJW's Profile:
View this thread:

ripping mailing list

Reply via email to