tomasz.wiktor
When BPM sort is set to descending sorted files are displayed at the end of the list below unanalyzed files. Same is about length. Is there way to influence sorting rules?
Posted Thu 12 Feb 15 @ 7:10 pm
PachN
AFAIK, no.
But that's something for a future release I think.
For me it mades totaly senes, to display all tracks with a value sorted at the top, and non-analysed files at the bottom. Regardless if ascending or descending order.
But that's something for a future release I think.
For me it mades totaly senes, to display all tracks with a value sorted at the top, and non-analysed files at the bottom. Regardless if ascending or descending order.
Posted Fri 13 Feb 15 @ 3:50 am
groovindj
To me it makes no sense to have unanalysed files in your database! :-)
IMO it should be task #1 to analyse your files when you add them to your collection. Problem solved!
IMO it should be task #1 to analyse your files when you add them to your collection. Problem solved!
Posted Fri 13 Feb 15 @ 5:26 am
PachN
Good point groovin.
But sometimes there is just not enough time to analyze your latest tracks for many reasons.
In general, I agree with you.
But sometimes there is just not enough time to analyze your latest tracks for many reasons.
In general, I agree with you.
Posted Fri 13 Feb 15 @ 7:43 am
groovindj
A filter folder could be set up:
isscanned=1 should eliminate any unscanned files.
isscanned=1 should eliminate any unscanned files.
Posted Fri 13 Feb 15 @ 7:45 am
tomasz.wiktor
Analyze over 28000 songs is no sense for me :) but sometimes happens that I'm playing something never ever used before. That's why is good to have it for example in search results. In that case also filtering out unanalyzed songs is no sense while this huge database nevertheless have to be sorted and then filtered. I see two minuses it's time consuming and blocks you to find anything from unplayed content.
Posted Fri 13 Feb 15 @ 1:27 pm
kradcliffe
Seems you are not too familiar with the music in your database which is kinda strange .....
You can also filter by play count.
You can also filter by play count.
Posted Fri 13 Feb 15 @ 1:42 pm
groovindj
user9182666 wrote :
Analyze over 28000 songs is no sense for me
Well unfortunately that's the way DJ software works. You add songs to the database and the software must analyze them to determine BPM and key.
You would need to do exactly the same with Traktor, Serato software, PCDJ software, One DJ, Flow, MIXXX, FutureDecks DJ Pro, Deckadance - you name it!
Posted Fri 13 Feb 15 @ 1:44 pm
tomasz.wiktor
I know that DB shrinking to have files only I need is the best option what should I do now or I can stay with VDJ7 where this really difficult to implement sorting method works. But generally are you just trying to tell me (I am software developer) that it is impossible to implement something that was implemented in the past? BTW off topic. sorting speed of big library somehow also is much slower in comparison to VDJ7.
Posted Fri 13 Feb 15 @ 6:08 pm
PhantomDeejay
How big is the list ?
I just tried with 4500 files and I get instant sorting. Loading a list is another thing though as some times it can take some time (up to 1-2 secs) if you have coverflow enabled.
I just tried with 4500 files and I get instant sorting. Loading a list is another thing though as some times it can take some time (up to 1-2 secs) if you have coverflow enabled.
Posted Sun 15 Feb 15 @ 8:39 pm