Re: OT: Help! (MP3 questions)

On 11 Aug 2009 11:03:33 GMT, zoara <me18@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

T i m <news@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:01:59 +0100, me18@xxxxxxxxxxx (zoara) wrote:

<snip>

So a semi manual solution to a problem that needn't exist (if the
player supported folder view).

Yes. But it evidently *doesn't* support folders, so that point is
moot.

But the Philips GoGear Spark apparently does.

Ah, so when you asked how you might get what you already have to do what
you want, what you meant was what can you replace it with that does what
you want.

No it wasn't (at the time).

Saying this in the first place would have saved us both a lot of time. I
assumed - as you go on so much about how little you can afford - that
simply binning the player and buying a new one was out of the question.

If it was to be binned yes. If it was to be sold / passed on in the
family / used by another of us then no.


Okay, to humour you; if the player
supports playlists, then you select that playlist and it plays the
contents of that playlist.

And the playlist got there how?

I was responding to what you asked. Sorry if you meant something else.

No, you answered my question but that may not have actually fitted the
requirement. *If* said playlist could (in principal) both create and
maintain itself and also provide the same functionality as the folder
view then it could well be a solution. Hence my question.


And what if she moves a music track from one folder to another. How do
most of these things update their playlists?

Think about what you're asking, T i m. I'm suggesting playlists as a
workaround for the lack of support for moving things around manually.
What do *you* think will happen?

From that I guess the answer would be '*** up'. So why would you
suggest we consider them as a solution (and I'm NOT trying to sound
ungrateful or difficult here, I am genuinely looking for an acceptable
solution here and don't fully understand the processes).


I honestly can't believe that wasn't a wind-up though.

And now?

Now I'm beginning to understand why you struggle so much.

Thanks. It isn't easy being me. Ok, so I now understand the principals
of the data that is associated with music files. I've downloaded a
program that allows me to see and edit them. I think I understand what
a playlist might offer but haven't seen / made / touched / examined /
used one so don't quite understand how they might *really* impact us
in the real world and / or on any / every player. Because the latter
may provide too many variables there may not actually be a definitive
answer to it in any case?


It's more than possible that she dismissed this through fear of the
unknown. That's nothing to be ashamed of.

No, she simply didn't want to use it that way.

That doesn't counter my theory, though, does it?

Well, no more than 'no' ever does? Just so we are straight on this. I
haven't said she can't do anything, I haven't (really) said she
wouldn't do anything, all I've said is what she want's to be able to
do. Like she always has, and enjoyed and knows and works_for_her etc
etc.


Perhaps if you pointed out that she could use playlists to act like
her
folders if she used WMP, then she might reconsider. At least then the
player that she has would do closer to what she wants than it
apparently
currently does.

I suspect she would either put up with it as-is or get the Spark.

So it's not actually a feature she's that bothered about, then?

In the same way that I could *nearly* manage to do what I need under
OSX as opposed to XP, no. But that's not the point, it's trying
desperately to continue using a system that works and you are happy
with? You must understand that Andy? How many times have I read here
and even from you about some upgrade taking away some functionality or
feature that you (and maybe only you) actually liked, to the point
where, after considering all available solutions, you find doesn't
make muster?


Ok, then she doesn't want a playlist either.

She doesn't *have* to use the inherent advantages of a
reference-based
system. If she only ever puts a given track in a *single* playlist, I
fail to see the difference between that and a folder of files in the
above context.

'Puts'? That sounds like she has to do that somehow.

So her music files currently magically move into folders of their own
accord? Or does she, you know, put them there?

You are winding me up now right? Ok, an aside if I may.

This morning I phoned Philips and spoke to their CS re the Spark. I
now have the right questions to ask and they were (I believe) answered
quickly and concisely (suggesting they may also be accurate).

Q1 "So, if we drag and drop some music tracks, from the computer to
some folders on the Spark, will they appear *as is*, on the Spark
screen?"

A "Yes (if you select folder view). However, IF there is metadata on
the tracks themselves it may display the TRACKS using this. To avoid
this (and to force it to display the file names) you can simply wipe
the data."

Q2 "I understand there is a delay when the unit is first turned on.
Does this delay get greater as more data is added?"

A "The delay only occurs the first time the device is powered on,
after any changes have been made to the data".

(We concluded that this was probably 'indexing the media on the drive
to allow the metadata based views to function).

So, it looks like we may have stumbled on a solution for the Clip.
Wipe all the metadata from her library [1] and then the folder names
may then appear as required. ;-)

FWIW I believe
the Spark allows you to put tracks into playlists (or 'a' playlist) on
the player itself. She wouldn't use the feature because for her there
is no requirement for a playlist, unless a playlist would
*automatically and on the player* pick up and display the actual name
of the folder and the filenames in which case I think she wouldn't
care how it happened, as long as it did.

What makes you think a playlist will behave any differently to a folder
in that regard? Have you been reading what I write or just looking at
the pretty squiggles on the screen?

It does work that way sometimes I'm afraid. I'm not (although I think
you may have just worked that out by yourself) a very good reader. I
try I promise but I have spent most my life skimming info to allow me
to just get _the_next_step, and not reading books or newspapers (where
you do read for content) that now it's quite difficult for me to do
anything else. Yer classic 'blokes never read the instructions' sorta
thing. ;-(

But in answer to your question I don't know *how* a playlist will
behave or function (or I still wouldn't be asking here eh)?


Just to make sure I have this right (you know how stupid I am) .. A
playlist is a list of locations of and tracks. You can have multiple
playlists and they could be music grouped like 'Party' or 'Car' or
'Work'. She wouldn't use such a system.

Your description applies exactly to folders, too. "A folder is a list of
locations of and tracks. You can have multiple folders and they could be
music grouped like 'Party' or 'Car' or 'Work'."

I understand how the view comes about when looking at it as a
filesystem.

How exactly do you think folders and playlists differ in use (ie after
creation; I know you have issues with their creation)?

Well, from what you have said they differ little *in use*. However
what I'm unsure about is 1) how they come into existence (especially
using a file manager to drag and drop and assuming the player doesn't
build them for you) and how they would cope if you then mucked about
with the file structure?

Remember, I'm a hardware engineer (my use of the word of course) and
the saying "You forget what you hear, you remember what you see and
you understand what you do" applies perfectly to me (and always has).
I'm getting older though so am even forgetting even I once understood!
;-(

If a player was *also* able to display it's contents making use of the
metadata then that might be used as an 'alternative' view.

Well, of course. What did you expect? I'm struggling to figure out what
you could be thinking here...

That 'unwanted' view MAY NOT get in the way? ie, on the Clip it looks
like it does whereas it may not on the Spark (because the Spark has a
specific option called 'Folder View' where it ignored anything other
than the filesystem names).


Understood, but what if she moved, deleted, renamed or added a track?

What if she moved, deleted, renamed or added a track using folders?

On the Spark, such actions would be instantly reflected in the
filesystem (folder) view. On the Clip it looks like it gets confused.


Your computer drags and drops without you doing anything? How does it
know where to drag and drop to?

Lost now. Plus you know the answer.


Ah, this is you building what you see on the box. What if (and I know
you wouldn't do this but) you wanted to simply rename a track and put
it in your own foldername?

Well, I'd first have to ignore the fact that you're forcing your own
solution as part of the question, and interpret your 'folder' as what it
does and not what it's called.

Erm, but isn't that what we *actually* want to do?

Then I'd rename the track and put it in
my own foldername - why do you think that would be hard? I do that all
the time. Well, I don't rename the tracks as often as they're almost
always named correctly for me. But sure I regularly file them into
'folders' that I have named what I want. Why do you think that would be
hard?

I don't 'know' anything, I'm asking. See, if whatever technology you
are talking about simply, automatically and transparently mimics
exactly what we are doing with the physical filesystem then 1) yes, it
could do what we want and 2) why would it need to be there if the
filesystem can do it all by itself in the first place ... (as all of
her previous players have)?


Still, if she's already manually sorted them into album and artist
folders, there's a chance you can use one of the metadata tools to
add
all this info to the files in one go, then just bung it on the player
and let it sort out the folders for her.

She neither needs nor wants anything to sort her stuff out for her.
She has her music in the order she want's on her PC

I thought she used folders -

Yes.

so she has no control over what order the
tracks are in.

No.

She's forced to have them in the order decreed by the
system; presumably alphabetically.

Yes. (And FWIW that is no problem because she either 1) plays one
track at a time or 2) is happy for them to appear sequentially or
randomly (player settings) or she skips the tracks she doesn't want to
listen to at that moment).


You are trying to force an electric plane on someone who likes to use
a spokeshave. No one is saying an electric plane isn't generally
quicker or easier but it may not be 'better' for everyone or in every
situation (like when there is no electric available).

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'd hold off on the analogies as you
really don't seem to have grasped them.

Ok.

I'm not saying 'my' system is better for you. I'm not forcing anything
on anyone. I'm not saying you need to drop your old system of
arbitrarily filing music in arbitrarily named locations. I'm simply
suggesting that, if you step back from your solutions (which evidently
don't work on what you bought) and look at your requirements, you may
find that an alternative solution will be an adequate compromise.

We will and if it is then that's fine.

It's like you've bought a brand new left-hand drive car and keep sitting
in the right hand seat and looking for the gearstick with your ledt
hand. I point out that you can emulate your previous driving habits in
the other seat, and by the way, this car has aircon and cruise control.

Ok.

You keep insisting that you don't want to use aircon or cruise control,
so there's no way you can drive this car. And it's ridiculous for me to
suggest sitting in the left-hand seat because that would mean you have
the door where the gearstick should be.

LOL. No, this (could be) more like you have given her a motorcycle
where she now has to sit on the pillion seat otherwise the handlebars
are too close (and there are other features that *may* impair her
riding ability). Maybeeee, if she doesn't need to go round a tight
corner it won't be an issue on the front ...

If you ask how to drive this car, you need to realise that you can't
insist on sitting in the right-hand seat (ie filing into folders) as the
car doesn't work that way. The best compromise you'll get is to sit on
the left-hand seat and get used to using your other hand to change gears
(ie filing into playlists). And when someone suggests the *option* of
using cruise control (ie letting the player organise artist / album
lists) realise that it's an *option* and you can drive the car without
pressing that particular button.

Indeed, as_long_as the cruse control doesn't kick in if it notices the
car doing a constant speed for more than (say) 60 seconds.

Sitting in the right hand seat and muttering "there's just no way I can
drive this, where's the steering wheel" helps no-one.

But folk do that very thing (and leave the manual and take up autos
etc).

Take on the
suggested compromises or give up and buy another car.

We will look at the compromise (of course) but have an alternative
lined up just_in_case.


But if it works and she can deal with it?

The point being it doesn't work; that's why you started this thread.
You're asking how to add a six-foot wheel to your mountain bike; I'm
saying it can't be done that way but you get the same effect by choosing
different sprockets on your new bike.

But are you saying with your solution it 'Can be done' ... there is no
question at_all that your 'solution' will be a seamless alternative to
what she is currently doing?

A large wheel has worked for you in the past. It won't work on your new
bike. Insisting the only way you (or your daughter) can keep up enough
speed to balance is to add a large wheel is missing the point that the
frame isn't designed to cope with a large wheel.

Or she sticks with her old bike (or a new replacement thereof).


Every castle I've ever seen has a front door. It might be protected by
a drawbridge and portcullis but there is a front door (in function)
none the less.

If you're willing to call the entrance to a castle a "front door"
because it is identical in function to a door, then why do you have such
problems with playlists? They are as functionally equivalent to folders
as your front door is to a castle entrance; and you can even
(incorrectly) call them folders if it helps, just like you're calling a
castle entrance a front door.

Ok, well if you insist this is the case then we will give it a go.


But then that wasn't the point in any case.

Your point is rarely clear in any case.

I'm very trying though.


Maybe this is better? My thought was that your daughter may have had
a
need ("I need to organise music into arbitrary lists") ...

Yes, she does, via the use of folders.

You really can't understand the difference between a need and a solution
presented as a need, can you? Think about it.

I'm not saying 'my' solution is a better one than yours, I'm simply
saying that stating your solution as a requirement will self-evidently
blind you to alternative solutions (however apropriate or not they may
be).

I'm not bothered about better (as in functionally OR you V me etc) I'm
interested that it is at least_equal_to. If you say it is then that's
fine, we'll give it a try, nothing to lose etc ...

If you come in with a set of solutions masquerading as requirements,
then you're reducing the potential number of solutions to one before you
even start, and that gets you stuck. You're an engineer, you understand
that.

I do.


She isn't bothered how that
music appears within each folder as long as she can browse it with
it's filenames.

Again, have you actually read anything here or just looked at the pretty
patterns of the letters?

<shrug>

Metadata has nothing to do with playlists. If
your files have such shitty metadata that you need to rely on the
filenames, *playlists will still work*. Why on earth wouldn't they?

Dunno, as I said up there ^, I'd have to *understand* how they were
created before I could give you an honest answer to that.

Like, I could show you a hole in the wall and you would see a hole in
the wall but you may not know how that hole was made? You try and make
a similar hole in the wall and electrocute yourself or take the wall
down.

Because her friends have had all neatly ripped and automatically
sorted iPods with playlists and she doesn't want that.

You're confusing playlists with auto-sorting again.

Ah, something new here? Ok, say she's in Explorer and has copied and
pasted some tracks to the player, and happens to be in file name
ascending display mode within Explorer, is this what you mean by 'auto
sorting'?


I will entertain a compromise if it involves no user intervention and
allows her the flexibility she requires.

How can you get music onto a player with no user intervention?

Not for the files, for the creation of these playlists.


Well whilst that sounds like it could be a solution it also sounds
like it's introduced another (therefore less efficient) step?

Step?

Sorry, in this instance I should have said process.

That makes even less sense. I'd try that sentence again from scratch if
I were you.

We are back to the creation of these 'playlists'. When she dads and
drops that's all she does. When she's going to use a playlist to
'mimic' her folder view, what does she do different (the answer could
be nothing). So if it is 'nothing' why aren't our PC's littered with
playlists?


One of the
criticisms I've read re the Spark is that it compiles some sort of
'media list' when you turn it on.

That will be so it can organise the music into artists and albums after
you've dicked around with its database behind its back. Ten seconds for
less than a gig of music?

Apparently and only after you have dicked stuff around.

So, presumably, a two minute wait for just the
measly 10GB I have on my phone or 20 minutes for what I used to carry
around?

Other than this is a 4G device yes, but apparently it's not linear
like that (but the proof may be in the pudding on that one).

I'm glad I don't have to deal with that kind of crap. And hey, I can
still organise my music into folders and name them what I want. Wow.

As long as it makes *you* happy. ;-)


If you can accidentally snap an iPod nano in half, I'll pay for it
twice
over. That's a promise.

If she can get her Fuji F31fd flattened under a truck and her Samsung
'Solid' (rugged builders phone) smashed while she had it in her work
trousers (PPE) you may be in for an expensive week.

I said 'snapped in half' not 'broken'. The offer stands.

I'll pass the offer on when she returns, thanks. (Does the Nano still
use the roundy wheel thing, if yes then I'm pretty sure it won't even
be getting as far as her pocket). [2]

It wasn't 'offhand' it just doesn't seem to provide an acceptable
solution.

I think you are confused. I'm not saying it *is* an acceptable solution,
just that based on your apparent understanding of what I am saying, you
are making an ill-informed judgement.

Quite possibly. Time will tell.


That doesn't mean we wouldn't try it?

I can't answer that question, it's up to you to decide.

Well of course we will try it. The only reason we won't is because we
won't know how to.


p.s. FWIW and in the hope that it helps you understand why some people
might prefer our solution, here is just one example of someone looking
for the exact same solution on a PC based soft mp3 player.

Why do you think I can't understand why someone wants your solution? Are
you reading anything I write?

I understand your solution; I'm offering alternative solutions *because
you came ere asking for them* because your solution *doesn't work*.

I came here asking for a solution to a specific question (making the
folder names appear ... as their real folder names) and why they
weren't and why track name were being substituted instead.

How do you interpret that as me failing to understand why anyone wants
to do it the way you do it? How is that possible?

It's *me*?

Now you've finished reading my post. Assuming you didn't start replying
to it before reading it all (your response style suggests otherwise)
then I would strongly recommend you read it properly before responding.
That way, what you write will relate to what I have written, rather than
what you think I have written, and we can have a conversation.

Doh!

Right, back to the shed ... ;-)

T i m

[1] Probably quicker than trying to edit them all to be something more
meaningful.

[2] A mate dropped some wood off earlier (for a small shed I'm
building) and he has two phones atm. A Nokia smartphone of some sort
and an iPhone. He can do similar stuff on both and I asked for a quick
look / demo / reminder of the music player bit on the iPhone. I'm not
sure I actually like the touch screen thing, like I'm not sure I like
it on the T|X (or my Garmin 2610) and in all cases I think it's
because it's neither one thing or the other (real buttons + touch
screen stuff). Also the flick thing .. bit like spinning a roulette
wheel ...
.

Loading