Jump to content

Recommended Posts

@traxformania I can try to reproduce your bug scenario with the little help: I need exactly folder structure and images which fails for you. It can be one folder, one image, and one track which fails on your device. (If possible, please zip it and send to gpmaxmpz@gmail.com or share via some cloud). Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It is just a necessary. If the "Add URL" option cannot be used for all categories except playlists and Stream category, just remove it from list menu.

IMG_20200109_221346.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, M Akmal said:

If the "Add URL" option cannot be used for all categories except playlists and Stream category, just remove it from list menu.

Agreed, it appears that the 'Add URL' link has accidentally been included in several song-level context menus which it probably doesn't apply to (e.g. Folders, Albums, Artists).

Andre

Link to post
Share on other sites

Build 859:

  • Show Track Number option now has multiple modes: Titles, Meta, Separate number
  • new  Show Disc  option
    Full Rescan  may be required to enable this option
  • new songs sorting by Disc and track #
    Full Rescan  may be required to enable this option
  • translations updates
    Big thanks to all our Crowdin  translators !
  • bug fixes and stability improvements
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, maxmp said:

Build 859:

  • Show Track Number option now has multiple modes: Titles, Meta, Separate number
  • new  Show Disc  option

Great! Many thanks for the update.

May I suggest two things:

  1. Disc number (if enabled) should always be displayed together with the track number - be it in meta, list or title. As it is now (disc number always in meta) it doesn't visually group the tracks into discs, and if the track number is set to be displayed in a list or title, we have to look to two places for every track to get the full information.
  2. Track and Disc number display format. I think "disc track" or 'disc.track" would be more readable than "track/disc" - especially in meta, where there are "|" separators, too. Also, the disc number should be before the track number.
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, M Akmal said:

@maxmp , When will the app come out in play store? I still haven't got it.

It sometimes takes a while, the latest versions are always released here on the forums first. Just download from the link and install if you want it in the meantime.

Andre

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't quite see the point of the extra complexity, or requiring users to manually change their settings now, of having two separate 'Sort By Track#' and 'Sort By Disc# and Track#' options. Using Track# sorting should automatically use a Disc# tag too, if one is present in the file. I can't envisage any possible scenario where a user might want to ignore valid Disc# tags when sorting in Track order?

[Edit] In fact, setting the option to just "Sort By Track#" does still seem to correctly reflect Disc# tags too, so that extra 'Sort By Disc# and Track#' option doesn't seem to do anything different? I suggest just having one option in order to simplify the selection list.

Info/Tags is still showing a 'Disc' item, populated with '1', even when there is no Disc# tag present in the file. IMHO that field should be hidden in such cases - just like the Track item is hidden when there is no Track# tag in the file. A missing Disc# tag should be handled (and sorted) differently to cases of files that do have a valid Disc# tag of '1'. 

Enabling the Disc option doesn't seem to change the meta info (it's there either way, tiny text next to the track running time).

image.png

IMHO the disc number (and only if a real Disc# tag is present) should be more obvious, shown before the Track number, such as:
1/1. The Eve of the War
1/2. The Artilleryman and the Fighting Machine

... (etc)
1/5. Thunder Child
2/1. The Red Weed (Part 1)
2/2. The Spirit of Man

... (etc)

Not sure what' Relevant Categories' are meant to mean either - with that option enabled, I looked in Folders, Albums, and Artists categories and there was no Track# shown. Why not just make it more user-controllable and intuitive and select that feature manually within each Category's 'List Options > View' section - somewhere just above the lists/grids/etc settings?

And finally I'd suggest keeping the separate feature in Look and Feel > Player UI to control whether Track numbers also appear in the Player screen or not - ideally with three options: 'Always Off' | 'As Per Category List Options' | 'Always On'.

Andre

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, andrewilley said:

I don't quite see the point of the extra complexity, or requiring users to manually change their settings now, of having two separate 'Sort By Track#' and 'Sort By Disc# and Track#' options. Using Track# sorting should automatically use a Disc# tag too, if one is present in the file. I can't envisage any possible scenario where a user might want to ignore valid Disc# tags when sorting in Track order? Certainly anyone with Track# selected should have the Disc# feature included automatically without needing to change their settings manually.

Andre

True, Andre! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

My phone Galaxy Note 9,

I am problem with HI-RES output wired headsets.  Always error message to select more up 192khz sample rate. And Hi-RES bluetooth sample rate it always 44.1khz now.

HI-RES output wired headsets 32bits not support now last version v859.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: Track numbers again. I'm seeing quite a lot of tracks that either have no Track# ID3 tag, or else a track number in three digits (a lot of my weekly podcasts have 'track' numbers in the 200-400 region) are showing as Track 99 within list views and/or in the Player UI. This is despite them showing correctly as either missing the tag completely, or having a number such as 287, in Info/Tags. Some other files which also have missing tags just show nothing in the space for track numbers, which is the behaviour I would expect.

Andre

Link to post
Share on other sites

@andrewilley sorting by track # always honored disc, but due to the previous hidden bugs (now fixed) many tracks without actual tag got wrong or no disc #. Now, Sort by track mixes both no-disc and disc=1 as a first group then disc 2 tracks go, then disc 3, etc. This is due to tracks in the wild sometimes having disc=1 by default, sometimes not having it, so for many collections we want these (disc=none and disc=1) sorted in one group.

If your music collection is properly tagged (you have disc tag either set for the whole album or not set at all), then you may prefer Sort by disc and tag #.

As Poweramp users often want as condensed and as compact track items as possible max displayed number is 99 and higher numbers are capped by this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, maxmp said:

As Poweramp users often want as condensed and as compact track items as possible max displayed number is 99 and higher numbers are capped by this.

If a track number says 150, should it not be displayed as 150. Is displaying a Title line such as "150. Some Long-running Podcast Title" such a major issue, compared to  the confusion of dozens of titles all starting with "99"?  That sort of string length might happen anyway once you add the requested disc number prefix at the front of track numbers - assuming a Disc tag is present of course - e.g. "2/11. The Eleventh Song on Disc Two".

Also I firmly believe that when a Disc ID3 tag is missing from a file (which is pretty common) that should always be treated as being a null item, and thus no disc number would be displayed, and it should definitely not be treated as being synonymous with there being a tag value of  '1' which would imply that this is disc 1 in a series of discs. Basically it should work in the same way that a series of missing Track ID3 tags should not be treated as if all of the songs were track #1, they are simply null entries and no track number is displayed.

Just my 2 cents worth anyway.

Andre

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maxmp said:

As Poweramp users often want as condensed and as compact track items as possible max displayed number is 99 and higher numbers are capped by this.

Please increase the string to 3 characters. I for one, have a 400+ tracks in an R&B compilation album, of which were carefully picked. Thank you!

Edited by invaderzim
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, invaderzim said:

Please increase the string to 3 characters. I for one, have a 400+ tracks in an R&B compilation album, of which were carefully picked. Thank you!

LOL, I was going to mention 'pseudo-albums' like that in my earlier post, but I thought that probably no one apart from a geek like me would have gone to the bother of creating and properly tagging 100+ tracks, so I deleted the sentence before posting. Seems I was wrong. :)

Andre

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, andrewilley said:

LOL, I was going to mention 'pseudo-albums' like that in my earlier post, but I thought that probably no one apart from a geek like me would have gone to the bother of creating and properly tagging 100+ tracks, so I deleted the sentence before posting. Seems I was wrong. :)

Andre

Haha! Most likely our "buddies" are just lurking in the shadows, waiting for geeks to post one request such as this. 🤣

But seriously, seeing 'em 300+ tracks all at 99. Still, thankful and happy PA is being developed constantly. 🙏🏾

Link to post
Share on other sites

@andrewilley can you share one of such podcasts? I want to look into naming / tags there. Poweramp will use number from filename only if no number tag exists, probably this should be limited by reasonable number like 99. Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, maxmp said:

Poweramp will use number from filename only if no number tag exists,

I hadn't thought about PA potentially trying to pick up numbers from filenames, I was expecting it to be using tags only for track/disc numbers. I'll have a look, that could definitely be why files with no track# tags are showing a track number of 99.

Andre

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...