I suspect that LMS, running as a Windows service, can see mapped drives
- so would not be able to access m:\
Paul Webster
http://dabdig.blogspot.com
author of \"now playing\" plugins covering radio france (fip etc),
planetradio (bauer - kiss, absolute, scala, jazzfm etc), kcrw, supla
finland,
If UNC path doesn't work for LMS in your case, just map the music drive
on both PC's to the same drive letter:
- LMS PC: M-drive points to \\NAS\MusicFolder
- MusicBee computer: M-drive points to \\NAS\MusicFolder
This way, in theory at least, as I don't know the way this program
works,
d6jg wrote:
> On the LMS pc if you do Start, Run type \\server\path and press enter
> what happens?
>
> Edit. Forget that, it will work. Ive just remembered reading somewhere
> before that LMS on Windows doesnt like UNC paths.
>
> Medium term you may well be advised to move LMS to a Pi but
d6jg wrote:
>
> Medium term you may well be advised to move LMS to a Pi but keep your
> files on the NAS.playlists as they are
I've thought about a Pi on and off for many years. Still haven't pulled
the trigger. And not sure that I will.
phred wrote:
> You are correct in that the playlists point to the tracks as
> \\server\path.
>
> And the playlist directory is W:\ which is now a mapped drive on the PC
> where MusicBee lives. For whatever reason, the PC where LMS lives
> wouldn't accept the UNC path either to the music files
d6jg wrote:
> Look at a playlist and youll probably find the tracks are not listed as
> in Z: but in \\server\path
>
> If they are then you can correct the count without recreating the
> playlists by pointing LMS at \\server\path instead of Z: you can leave
> W: as it is or change that as well
phred wrote:
> Here's the final (manual) scan results. The playlists are back in the
> scan. And the number of tracks showing in the control panel has once
> again jumped to about 20k more than the actual number of tracks. So the
> tracks referenced in the playlist are definitely being added to
Here's the final (manual) scan results. The playlists are back in the
scan. And the number of tracks showing in the control panel has once
again jumped to about 20k more than the actual number of tracks. So the
tracks referenced in the playlist are definitely being added to the
total count of
bakker_be wrote:
> Indeed, but this maybe makes it a little clearer for the less
> technically minded ;)
Thanks for the explanation. While I'm far from a luddite, and don't
consider myself technically challenged, I do sometimes struggle with
networking issues and the finer points of LMS.
kidstypike wrote:
> But your scan shows you no longer have any playlists.
> The screenshot of a clear and rescan in your post #27 shows you had 90
> playlists.
Yes, I noticed that last night when I went to listen to a playlist.
I'm working on that. It appears there is/was a typo in the path.
bakker_be wrote:
> Indeed, but this maybe makes it a little clearer for the less
> technically minded ;)Agreed [emoji106]
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
slartibartfast's Profile:
slartibartfast wrote:
> A more detailed form of what I said then. [emoji3]
>
> https://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?p=1017913
>
> Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
Indeed, but this maybe makes it a little clearer for the less
technically minded ;)
Main System: Touch; Marantz
bakker_be wrote:
> The "problem" with the playlists is actually quite simple. Let me detail
> it for you:
> LMS:
> > > >
- Lives on Win10 box
- Sees music files on a mapped drive. This is considered a "local"
> file, as in "This disc is physically attached to this PC". The way
> in
The "problem" with the playlists is actually quite simple. Let me detail
it for you:
LMS:
- Lives on Win10 box
- Sees music files on a mapped drive. This is considered a "local"
file, as in "This disc is physically attached to this PC". The way in
which it's attached is
phred wrote:
> It seems there were only a couple of hundred tracks that had APE tags
> (along side ID3v2) and I deleted all the APEs. I then scanned "clear and
> rescan library" and now the results match. But surely the removal of APE
> tags from a couple of hundred tracks couldn't account for
phred wrote:
> Once I get the APE eliminated, I'll do another full clear and rescan
> scan and post the results. Should be by the weekend if not before.
It seems there were only a couple of hundred tracks that had APE tags
(along side ID3v2) and I deleted all the APEs. I then scanned "clear and
phred wrote:
> The music file directory on the NAS is mapped as "Z:" on the PC where
> LMS and the playlists live. IOW, they both point to the same directory.They
> might map.to the same directory but LMS might see them as different
because the paths are not exactly the same. i.e they contain
kidstypike wrote:
> I think you should get rid of those Ape tags, they seem to be causing
> problems.
> But this scan doesn't include the playlists which would've been of more
> interest.
Thanks for reminding me. I never realized I had APE tags until I saw
them referenced on the log. I
BosseJ wrote:
> In your earlier post where you showed the scan result, the log said that
> tracks were discovered on drive Z: but in the playlist track example you
> showed the path was directly to the NAS, no "Z:" drive involved.
The music file directory on the NAS is mapped as "Z:" on the PC
phred wrote:
> LMS lives on the C: drive of a Win10 Pro PC.
> The playlists are on the D: drive of the same machine.
> All the music files are on a NAS.
>
> There are no music files anywhere else. Not even the music listed in the
> playlists, which as you know, are only text files, which point
phred wrote:
> You say that like it's the first time you've seen something that can't
> be explained with PCs. :o
>
> Not thirty minutes ago my wife told me she can't log on to our banking
> website. I tried on her PC and there was an expired security
> certificate. I went to my PC (running
kidstypike wrote:
> Okay, well I can't unravel that one. But it's obviously the reason why
> it's adding the playlist tracks to your total number of tracks, and my
> playlists don't. :confused:
You say that like it's the first time you've seen something that can't
be explained with PCs. :o
Not
kidstypike wrote:
>
> Any chance of a look at your scanner log.
Sure. I noticed a number of Warnings in the log. "Tag larger than
maximum possible size" and "Header and footer size to not match." I did
a spot-check search for some of the tracks showing those errors, and
they've been scanned,
phred wrote:
> LMS lives on the C: drive of a Win10 Pro PC.
> The playlists are on the D: drive of the same machine.
> All the music files are on a NAS.
>
> There are no music files anywhere else. Not even the music listed in the
> playlists, which as you know, are only text files, which point
kidstypike wrote:
> I think those playlists must point to other music files on another
> drive.
LMS lives on the C: drive of a Win10 Pro PC.
The playlists are on the D: drive of the same machine.
All the music files are on a NAS.
There are no music files anywhere else. Not even the music
phred wrote:
> Which, at least in my case, is somewhat redundant. If it's in one of my
> playlists, it's in my library. And since I have some playlists that are
> "decades" (1940s, 1950s, etc) there could be a huge number of
> "duplicates." Just one example: my 1970s playlist consists of 6,308
I just pointed my Windows 10 server at the same library that my Pi uses.
Windows total tracks 56,269
Pi total tracks. 56,286
Total albums is the same on both.
I have no clue which tracks are missing in the Windows library [emoji3]
I also had two playlists on the Pi server which
slartibartfast wrote:
> So the tracks total includes tracks in playlists.
Which, at least in my case, is somewhat redundant. If it's in one of my
playlists, it's in my library. And since I have some playlists that are
"decades" (1940s, 1950s, etc) there could be a huge number of
"duplicates."
slartibartfast wrote:
> So the tracks total includes tracks in playlists. I had no idea. I don't
> have many playlists though so it doesn't have an obvious effect on my
> total.
I think those playlists must point to other music files on another
drive.
In the screenshot below if you add up the
phred wrote:
> And we have a winner!!
> '[image: http://i.imgur.com/9EqTOXel.jpg]'
> (https://i.imgur.com/9EqTOXe.jpg)
> '[image: http://i.imgur.com/F38zI5Kl.jpg]'
> (https://i.imgur.com/F38zI5K.jpg)
>
> Now to go add the playlists back in and promise myself not to look
> back.
>
> Thanks!So
kidstypike wrote:
> Well we're getting somewhere. :)
> If it were me, I'd remove the playlists folder path from Settings/Basic
> Settings, do a clear and rescan, and have a look at the numbers again.
And we have a winner!!
'[image: http://i.imgur.com/9EqTOXel.jpg]'
phred wrote:
> Uninstalling the plugin and starting a new clear and rescan resulted in
> a complete scan. Thank you for that.
> But the numbers remain pretty much the same.
> '[image: http://i.imgur.com/MxMygEMl.jpg]'
> (https://i.imgur.com/MxMygEM.jpg)
> '[image:
kidstypike wrote:
> Either uninstall the plugin "Full text search" or install a more recent
> version of LMS.
Uninstalling the plugin and starting a new clear and rescan resulted in
a complete scan. Thank you for that.
But the numbers remain pretty much the same.
'[image:
phred wrote:
> Except everything being scanned is on a NAS and the only files in the
> directory being scanned are MP3, .txt (lyrics,) and .jpg (artwork.)
> There is no Spotify. There is no OneDrive.
>
> But there is definitely a problem somewhere. I initiated a 'clear and
> rescan all' and
Grumpy Bob wrote:
> Anyway, phred's question was why doesn't the reported total number of
> tracks correspond to the number or tracks on the drive and reported in
> the database.
>
> In my case the total number of tracks = the sum of the number of tracks
> I have on the hard drive + the number
Grumpy Bob wrote:
> Anyway, phred's question was why doesn't the reported total number of
> tracks correspond to the number or tracks on the drive and reported in
> the database.
>
> In my case the total number of tracks = the sum of the number of tracks
> I have on the hard drive + the number
Anyway, phred's question was why doesn't the reported total number of
tracks correspond to the number or tracks on the drive and reported in
the database.
In my case the total number of tracks = the sum of the number of tracks
I have on the hard drive + the number of tracks I have in my Spotify
phred wrote:
> Because that's what I set it to do on the first tab of the control
> panel.Well it didn't scan any files.
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
slartibartfast's Profile:
kidstypike wrote:
> Or you may be mistaken.
> Or it hasn't completed properly.
>
> Below are screenshots for a small library.
>
> Compare then to your screenshot, nuff said.
>
If I'm mistaken it's because LMS didn't do what I selected. I do see the
difference in your two screenshots. As I
slartibartfast wrote:
> This may be a daft question but how can you tell?
>
Because that's what I set it to do on the first tab of the control
panel.
phred's Profile:
phred wrote:
> Yes, the screenshot is the result of a Clear and rescan action. Whether
> it appears to be or not, it is.This may be a daft question but how can you
> tell?
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
phred wrote:
> Yes, the screenshot is the result of a Clear and rescan action. Whether
> it appears to be or not, it is.
Or you may be mistaken.
Or it hasn't completed properly.
Below are screenshots for a small library.
Compare then to your screenshot, nuff said.
34098
34099
phred wrote:
> Yes, the screenshot is the result of a Clear and rescan action. Whether
> it appears to be or not, it is.Anything in the scanner log?
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
slartibartfast's Profile:
phred wrote:
> I suppose that's a possibility as each artist has their own directory,
> and under that is a directory for each album.
And do you use any streaming services?
Robert
*Home: *Raspberry Pi 4/pCP7.0/LMS8.1.2/Material with files on QNAP
TS-251A
Touch > DacMagic 100 > Naim Audio
bpa wrote:
> Any use of CUE files - where thee canbe multiple tracks in a single file
> ?
No, no cue sheets. All music files are MP3. And there are no streaming
service files present.
Most tracks have lyrics as a separate text file within the directory
where the album lives. And each album has
Grumpy Bob wrote:
> but I have always assumed that the discovering files/directories count
> will be higher than the final number of tracks, because it includes the
> folder structure.
>
I suppose that's a possibility as each artist has their own directory,
and under that is a directory for
slartibartfast wrote:
> Did you say the screenshot was of a "Clear and rescan"? It doesn"t
> appear to be.
>
Yes, the screenshot is the result of a Clear and rescan action. Whether
it appears to be or not, it is.
Any use of CUE files - where thee canbe multiple tracks in a single file
?
bpa's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=1806
View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=114313
kidstypike wrote:
> It should be "Scanning *new* music files" if it's a clear & rescan,
> because it's database no longer exists, so every music file is "new",
> not "changed".
Agreed. Not enough coffee at this end for "educated" guesswork :)
Duet x 3, via various hi-fi. LMS on Raspberry
kidstypike wrote:
> Don't agree, a clear and rescan second line would be "Scanning new music
> files".
>
Good point. You're right.
Duet x 3, via various hi-fi. LMS on Raspberry Pi OS (Debian 10) on a
Pi4.
SpiderJon's
SpiderJon wrote:
> I suspect you only get that if it discovers new (rather than just
> changed) music files during the "Discovering" phase.
It should be "Scanning *new* music files" if it's a clear & rescan,
because it's database no longer exists, so every music file is "new",
not "changed".
slartibartfast wrote:
> Where is "Scanning new music files" after Discovering files?
>
>
I suspect you only get that if it discovers new (rather than just
changed) music files during the "Discovering" phase.
Duet x 3, via various hi-fi. LMS on Raspberry Pi OS (Debian 10) on a
Pi4.
SpiderJon wrote:
> I think it is. If it were just a "scan for new and changed" the second
> line would be "Scanning changed files", rather than "Discovering
> playlists".
Don't agree, a clear and rescan second line would be "Scanning new music
files".
34084
SpiderJon wrote:
> I think it is. If it were just a "scan for new and changed" the second
> line would be "Scanning changed files", rather than "Discovering
> playlists".Where is "Scanning new music files" after Discovering files?
Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk
slartibartfast wrote:
> Did you say the screenshot was of a "Clear and rescan"? It doesn't
> appear to be.
>
I think it is. If it were just a "scan for new and changed" the second
line would be "Scanning changed files", rather than "Discovering
playlists".
Duet x 3, via various hi-fi. LMS
It occurs to me that maybe the "Total Tracks" includes tracks from
streaming services as well as the local library?
I did a rescan on a backup server and it shows;
Total tracks 41,855
Scanned files 35,607
Spotty tracks 6,248
The value for total tracks is the sum of scanned files plus Spotty
phred wrote:
> Using LMS 7.9.4 - 1603273368 one a Win10 PC.
>
> I have LMS set to do a media scan daily at 1845. Usually just an update
> of new and changed files. I've been noticing that during the past few
> days the scan numbers don't match the actual results. Today I did a
> "clear library
I can't say why the scan report has such a high initial track count, but
I have always assumed that the discovering files/directories count will
be higher than the final number of tracks, because it includes the
folder structure.
Robert
*Home: *Raspberry Pi 4/pCP7.0/LMS8.1.2/Material with
Using LMS 7.9.4 - 1603273368 one a Win10 PC.
I have LMS set to do a media scan daily at 1845. Usually just an update
of new and changed files. I've been noticing that during the past few
days the scan numbers don't match the actual results. Today I did a
"clear library and rescan everything"
59 matches
Mail list logo
