d6jg wrote: 
> I didn’t say that all the rippers I used created Compilation tags. I
> merely said that I had used lots of different software to put into
> context the fact that I am aware that not all software is the same.
> You have used 3 examples. WinAmp, WMP and EAC. In my view (and I suspect
> most others who frequent this forum on a regular basis) I wouldn’t
> bother with WinAmp or WMP. EAC is good but being freeware it lacks the
> polish and advanced features of dbPoweramp. If you have never tried that
> then I suggest you do.
> My argument with your point is that you use 3 specific examples of
> ripping software as your driver to seek the removal of the existing
> Various Artist logic in LMS. 2 of the 3 aren’t rippers by design - it
> is an additional feature - to their main purpose. You have ignored the
> fact that a significant number of other pieces of software do use (or
> give you the option to use) Compilation tags. Personally I don’t like
> them but that’s my choice.
> IMHO there is very little wrong with the logic in LMS when compared to
> other software of its ilk and I think Michael has a lot more pressing
> and important stuff that he wants to deal with.
> On that note I am going to bed and will put my headphones on and listen
> to some music.

look guy, i'm not trying to argue with you, or anyone.  but you guys are
arguing with me in ways that are just outrageous.  and again, please
leave the forum bias at the door.  server should suit the marketplace,
not this forum.  i could count on both hands the amount of albums i've
ripped with WMP and winamp combined, but its totally besides the point.

nothing i am saying is controversial.  let me rephrase it and tell me
what, if any part of it, is wrong, or you disagree with in some way:

1. LMS is a music server.  it does not rip or edit files.  ergo it
should be expected to handle, out of the box, a wide array of common
usage scenarios it will be presented.

any problem so far?

2. a lot of rippers set no comp tags.

agree?  b/c that is a simple fact.  it doesn't matter how many, it only
needs be acknowledged that enough of the marketplace does not.

3. one common use scenario that server borks right out of the box is bug
9523, which is a string conflict.  this commonly happens when a comp CD
has been ripped and has no comp tags, yet does have the string Various
Artists in the albumartist field; OR in the artist field (with the
albumartist field blank).  this album will then be hidden from some
views in server.

trust me, that's a real and verified bug, and a common scenario server
is presented with.

4. separately, the VA detection logic works for some users, but not all
users.  depending on the situation, something might be tagged
"correctly" by a ripper, yet server will get it wrong, meaning classify
something as a comp that isn't a comp, OR not classify something as a
comp that IS a comp.  (examples of both cases are common and not hard to
find).  given this, there should be an option to turn it off, which
should also help with scan times, and reduce complexity.  (this has
nothing to do with comp tags, which should always be respected)

so contrary to what you said above, i am NOT arguing for its removal,
merely a pref to turn it off.

any problem with that?


Erland already wrote the code for this pref.  all Michael has to do is
add it to the nightly beta, and let people try it.  you guys are free to
argue against the wisdom of the request, that may or may not be valid,
but what you aren't entitled to is your own facts.  the facts as i have
laid them out are valid.

again, no wish to argue with you, but u can't simply say what i am
talking about doesn't happen, b/c it does, and imo, should be addressed.

using:  win7 64 + lms 7.9 & duet & ipads w/the logitech app, and ipeng
on an ipod
http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.php/various_artists_logic &
BJW's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=58242
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=106970

ripping mailing list

Reply via email to