For once in my life I have to agree with soundcheck
I usually tag this way: I put all information in an organized text file, than using a bash script based on "metaflac" I embed those information in the flacs, the script also optimally resizes the cover using "convert" and embed it into the flacs.
In the beginning I used online databases, but then I discovered that in most situations I was wasting too much time to understand which album among those returned was the most consistent with mine, and even in the best situation I had to make adjustments... I am much faster with the script... Also, for most old stuffs there are tons of different versions, but databases are very bad in making a distinction.
The key issue here is lack of STANDARDS. There is none actually.
For instance GENRE tag is quite complicated for most modern music. The Dark Side of The Moon, is it prog rock, prog-rock, psyc rock, psychedelic, progressive rock... One should put his/her own classification if he/she has one... I don't.
Actually the best thing would be to have multiple tags... but how to handle that? Mediaplayers usually have different ways to read tags and most of them do not support all different multiple taggings. Classical music is a pain in the ***, everybody has a different way to organize title and artist tags. Even classical music files originally downloaded on HDtracks are not consistent.
At the end what I try to do is to have a well organized system of folders, a consistent file naming scheme... so that I always find what I need!... just open the terminal and run a find
IMHO this liquid music market will never get somewhere if at some point they don't sit down and write an "open" standard system of cataloging music files.
One thing which would be really helpful would be that the record companies link a standard meta descriptor linked somehow with the bar code or build a qr-code system for that. So that you tag exactly what you have in your CD/SACD/DVDa
By the way, do you know any linux software that is able to scan bar-code from a jpg? I am thinking to build a database based on bar-codes.
Best
Pierre
Last edited by a moderator:
For once in my life I have to agree with soundcheck
Believe me. It's bugging me that you hardcore Linux folks around here wouldn't ever listen to what I'm saying.
That's why I had to run that damned Squeezebox Toolbox (rt-linux) project.
At least from my and a vast majority of users (several thousands downloads) and Logitech ( who probably now sold numerous more devices) perspective that one proved what I've been saying over here since 2007.
Seriously. The ignorance or maybe arrogance or just the lack of resources in Linux land puts a very high potential OS even further down in the ranking.
From my perspective the whole audio part is not progressing at all in Linux land. "Maintenance Mode" . If you're not progressing you'll go down the drain on the long run.
There's quite some progress on the surface ( Gnome 3 etc. ) but under the hood there seems to be a big black hole. What a pity.
(E.g. Since almost a year the RME HDSP package is broken and nobody takes
care about it!!! On W7 my 2004 HDSP just got a brandnew firmware/driver and a great mixer application. )
Yep. Folks. For the time being I'm back to W7.
Cheers
Believe me. It's bugging me that you hardcore
...
Linux folks around here wouldn't ever listen to what I'm saying.
...
Cheers
I was talking about tagging, which is not better on W7 or Mac OSX... a general issue with liquid music
Pierre
of course, also beets is affected by this problem. Sometimes you have to choose the "right" match. But! working on a whole album at a time (rather than track-by-track) reduces the amount of matches to a minimum.
agreed.
it is for ANY kind of music...
absolutely.
TAGs should be improved and standardized in a way suitable for all kind of music. As they are now it's a mess.
For instance, consider "artist": for classical music should it be set to the performer(s), the director or the composer? and what about albums containing tracks from more than one performer/composer/etc ?
In the online DBs it's a whole mess, everyone seems to have a different idea about that.
yes, this is what I do, too!
(...and my favorite "player" is play from sox!
)I hope they will, but I am afraid they don't care.
may be this one: ZBar bar code reader ?
What features should such GUI offer? Sox is not a player, does not have important features such as fast forward. IMO there are numerous good players for linux.
Try Music Player Daemon, and one of the many clients for it. I liked sonata for linux, QMPDClient for windows, and mpod for ipod touch-iphone. There is also a client for android devices, that I have not tried.
Music Player Daemon Community Wiki
Sonata Music Client for MPD
Music Player Daemon Community Wiki
Sonata Music Client for MPD
Believe me. It's bugging me that you hardcore Linux folks around here wouldn't ever listen to what I'm saying.
That's why I had to run that damned Squeezebox Toolbox (rt-linux) project.
At least from my and a vast majority of users (several thousands downloads) and Logitech ( who probably now sold numerous more devices) perspective that one proved what I've been saying over here since 2007.
Seriously. The ignorance or maybe arrogance or just the lack of resources in Linux land puts a very high potential OS even further down in the ranking.
From my perspective the whole audio part is not progressing at all in Linux land. "Maintenance Mode" . If you're not progressing you'll go down the drain on the long run.
There's quite some progress on the surface ( Gnome 3 etc. ) but under the hood there seems to be a big black hole. What a pity.
(E.g. Since almost a year the RME HDSP package is broken and nobody takes
care about it!!! On W7 my 2004 HDSP just got a brandnew firmware/driver and a great mixer application. )
Yep. Folks. For the time being I'm back to W7.
Cheers
I´ve just read your website and as a linux professional I have to say that most of your suggestions make no sense to me (as how and why they should have any impact on sound quality). There is probably a reason why "Linux folks around here wouldn't ever listen to what you say".
Don´t take it personal, but if you propose a modification I would at least provide a theory why this _might_ do any good.
Me as a graduated engineer and former Linux professional with some HW and quite some audio hw background, I couldn't care less.
If you can't make sense out of anything I write I consider it as a known sympton of Linux professionals.
(Or perhaps it's related to my poor english.)But lets leave this for now.
Good news.
Linux desktop systems achieved a market share growth of amazing 40% in 2011...
Ok Ok. Lets put it into perspective.
...in 2010 a marketshare on desktop-computers of roughly 1% had been reported.
Folks. Android made it to the top within their segment in close to no time.
There must be something going wrong in the Linux desktop world. I do have some ideas...
...or perhaps there are just too many old school linux professionals around.
Enjoy.
Last edited:
There must be something going wrong in the Linux desktop world. Perhaps too many old school linux professionals around.
Perhaps at least one self-claimed "linux professional". You definitely think high of your linux skills.
see. i get along quite well with my skill level. i did also quite well in my early professional career.
you obviously also missed the term "former" btw. i wasn't interested to spent all my live in the
linux jungle.
... and i never claimed to be a linux guru btw.
but all that is not the actual issue.
the issue is to be creative and to approach things with an open mind. first comes the idea.
that's what i miss when listening to many rather dogmatic Linux professionals who believe
to know it all because they've looked up the code...
...and unfortunately prevent from any progress by doing so.
enjoy
Last edited:
Right, the second step is implementation, and the third one is credible objective verification of the outcome. Without the third step it is all subjective, just ideas and unproven claims. Only after the third step (not by pointing to random "I can hear it too" claims) the idea and its implementation can be taken seriously. It does not have to be accompanied by a credible explanation, that is another step which can be performed by someone else or left for future generations. There are many unexplainable phenomena yet around us.
But the credible verification of the resulting effect being claimed is absolutely fundamental.
That is why I object to some (please note the "some") of your resolute "do it this way" claims. When the claimed effect is confirmed objectively, I will take them seriously and ask myself and others questions about causes. Until then I will use my technical instincts which call for caution with these claims.
Last edited:
soundcheck, just an example from your site, if one reads the "
2.2 Ethernet Hub on wired networks" part one might get the impression you have no
idea what a hub vs. a switch is ...
While of course everybody is free to do what he wants, the problem I have with your
"toolbox" is that you talk people into removing functionality and void the warranty of their
squeezebox without at least presenting a theory (let alone proof) why this would have any benefit.
BTW the "daemon killer mod" for example, care to elaborate what you would expect from this soundwise ? And why ?
2.2 Ethernet Hub on wired networks" part one might get the impression you have no
idea what a hub vs. a switch is ...
While of course everybody is free to do what he wants, the problem I have with your
"toolbox" is that you talk people into removing functionality and void the warranty of their
squeezebox without at least presenting a theory (let alone proof) why this would have any benefit.
BTW the "daemon killer mod" for example, care to elaborate what you would expect from this soundwise ? And why ?
I don't have to prove anything anymore.
However.
1. I presented a theory. And pretty much all mods follow this theory.
2. I presented a tool to prove it.
3. I counted thousands of downloads and got endless feedback confirming that it works
4. I even got measurements that prove it
5. there are hundreds of other examples out there on other OSses, which happen to show the very same effects on similar measures, also covered by measurements.
End of discussion.
And just to finalize it:
Scientific evidence not only means "proven by measuremenst". Empirical results are experimental observations and this method is widely used in science.
In my case not having access to expensive measurement equipment, empirical data are more than sufficient from my perspective.
Especially when looking at the majority of manufacturers who still fail to nail those distortions down to be able to fight those distortions.
I don't have to sell anything. People don't have to install my toolbox. They do it 100% at their own risk. Free of charge.
It's that easy.
As of now I havn't seen much ( Hmmh. I can't recall any) support of the Linux community (from Linux professionals) over here over the last years. It's rather the other way around. The Linux people over here IMO act pretty destructive and arrogant.
Most of those people around here who' are driving those useless discussions never even tried what I'm offering.
They probably never had a SB Touch in front of them. Yep. That's how it works with Linux professionals.
They try to force me to get myself 20k+ measureemnt equipment instead of buying a 200$ SB Touch to find out very easily what's going on. Folks that's not working.
Enjoy.
Last edited:
You simply sidestepped the question,
For the example I picked (daemon killer) ?
1. therory, where ?
2. tool to proove it, where ? (You don´t even mention what to proove)
3. There are always people that simply believe, not only in the audio field
4. Must have missed them. Where ? And what did you measure ?
5. So other measures on different system prove what ?
I´ve seen you call yourself a "Management Consultant" now, no further comment needed.
For the example I picked (daemon killer) ?
1. therory, where ?
2. tool to proove it, where ? (You don´t even mention what to proove)
3. There are always people that simply believe, not only in the audio field
4. Must have missed them. Where ? And what did you measure ?
5. So other measures on different system prove what ?
I´ve seen you call yourself a "Management Consultant" now, no further comment needed.
Actually looking at the code would teach you thing or two and help to understand how things really work ...
What you are doing is like modifying an amplifier without being able to read the schematic.
That is certainly true.
Experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Design of experiments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Thousands of downloads" and "endless feedback confirming that it works" do not constitute any of the above.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.