AdminDan Gravell
(Founder and programmer, bliss)
My feedback
499 results found
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment bliss does keep a watch but it does so using inotify; there should be no-where near 25% CPU usage. Something else must be going on. Note if you have the Web UI showing this can sometimes use some CPU, and obviously if there's a scan going on that will too.
An error occurred while saving the comment Thanks Nathan, nice idea. Would this be covered by: http://ideas.blisshq.com/forums/21939-bliss/suggestions/9161260-move-music-files-between-libraries ?
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment If we just supported different cases in the filename field, would that work?
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Do you mean file size (I changed the title)?
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment I'm surprised a scan of an individual album should take so long and slow down other albums so much. What are you seeing that suggests this is the case?
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment I think the nicest way of solving this would be:
1) Not discarding compliance data between releases and
2) Maintaining historical stats (and a way of viewing them)I've had the thought that (2) should be part of a dashboard on the home page of bliss (rather than albums).
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment It really depends on what the canonical release name is. In some cases, this will include the composer name, in others it won't. And in other cases the data from the databases might be wrong, as you identify.
I can see the value with this, just explaining why bliss does what it does.
One way of ignoring some releases would be with https://www.blisshq.com/music-library-management-blog/2017/08/01/ruleset-selecta/
An error occurred while saving the comment Interesting, thanks.
That style guide is written for the benefit of the iTunes Music Store, not a music collector. Most music databases will seek to preserve the release name as the sole release title, removing any other polluting data. So I would start by assuming the current approach is the correct one.
That said, it doesn't help working with iTunes music store collections if consistency is key. This sounds like a good application of http://ideas.blisshq.com/forums/21939-bliss/suggestions/31738582-derived-tags
-
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment I'm not familiar with them - they appear to be standalone programs.
An error occurred while saving the comment Erm, which image is that?
An error occurred while saving the comment Indeed - but automation can only happen, really, when there's some intelligence about allowing one file to remain.
An error occurred while saving the comment Perhaps files ending with a number could be detected as the most-likely duplicate and have the fix by default - that way the Inbox and grouped album fixes could be clicked once.
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Just tried this - it works fine. It requires cookies to be enabled - could that be the problem?
-
22 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment One of the other problems is that bliss currently runs when it sees an album. So if it sees an album with "Disc 1" - is that a multidisc album or not? It might not have scanned the other album yet...
An error occurred while saving the comment Unfortunately you can't. See https://www.blisshq.com/music-library-management-blog/2017/08/01/ruleset-selecta/ which is my favoured way of implementing this.
An error occurred while saving the comment You either:
- Don't use the rule!
- Use discnumber in the pattern
- Use a conditional discnumber in the pattern, and remove discnumber from the albums with one piece of media: https://www.blisshq.com/music-library-management-blog/2013/07/30/more-uses-conditional-file-org/An error occurred while saving the comment An error occurred while saving the comment I just wanted to add... The trouble with using disc number in this way is - how do you know if another set of files has disc number >= 2? Because if there is, the decision should include the disc folder, and not otherwise.
The more deterministic way of doing this is to look at disc max number which should indicate how many discs are in a given release. Then use your logic on that tag rather than discnumber.
An error occurred while saving the comment Ah, ok, so when you have single disc albums with discnumber=1 then you want to be able to choose a different pattern.
If the discnumber is absent then it is already possible to do this:
http://www.blisshq.com/music-library-management-blog/2012/01/13/organising-multi-disc-album-files/
... but that doesn't work where discnumber=1 and it's single disc.
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment This would be useful for sure! Thanks for posting.
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Should they? Some people might want to find duplicates and delete the MP3 (for example). I think this should be setup with a heuristic.
-
21 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment In the version just gone to beta, out next week, entire albums can be removed from bliss (and optionally the folders can be rescanned). The files are not deleted though, so I'll leave this open.
An error occurred while saving the comment Deleting from bliss, and/or deleting the actual files from disk?
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment On the albums page you can use the compliance filters on the left to narrow down to just albums with duplicates. Does that help?
-
13 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Agree - it does point to having special ways of forming file names being a good idea.
An error occurred while saving the comment For reordering artist names in the tags (which will then propogate through to file names) see https://www.blisshq.com/music-library-management-blog/2017/07/04/reordering-the-artist-name/
An error occurred while saving the comment <raw:artist_sort> is now implemented! https://www.blisshq.com/music-library-management-blog/2016/11/15/release-20161108/
I'm of a mind to now close this - artist_sort or album_artist_sort can now be used, and is a simpler solution to the problem - the only requirement being you still need to store _sort tags!
An error occurred while saving the comment Another way of approaching this would be to add artist sort name tags and use those, with a <raw> token (not implemented yet, but would be a good general addition).
An error occurred while saving the comment Thanks. Is this for the file organisation feature?
-
1 vote
An error occurred while saving the comment Thanks - which list in particular?
-
2 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment You mean on the artists list? So long as it's information in your library, I think this would be ok.
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment I think this should work within the same page, e.g. if you choose 96 albums it should stick for albums, but not artists.
Are you saying it should stick across all types?
-
17 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment As it's unlikely browsers will lower their security standards, I can't see a link to the folder ever being a possibility.
Since https://www.blisshq.com/music-library-management-blog/2018/03/01/release-20180301-album-tags/ we've had the ability to see the folder name. In addition I've added the ability to copy/paste to the next beta.
The final option is to add a file based browser to bliss, and link to that. If there's some support for changing this idea to support that, I can change this idea's title. Otherwise, I'll mark it declined.
An error occurred while saving the comment It depends what you mean by "bring the user to the location in the file system where the represented album exists".
It's hard to just pop up an instance of Windows Explorer pointing at that folder.
Chrome won't even let you open file:// links *at all* when the original content is served over http.
However, if you just want to see the locations listed so you could copy and paste into Explorer, that's easy.
An error occurred while saving the comment I like the intent of this idea. There's a fundamental problem though, in that bliss is designed as much to work on servers as it is a local desktop or laptop. If bliss is installed on a different computer you cannot open up the OS's file navigator to that location.
This is why the 'Browse' button, when choosing your music library, doesn't show the standard OS navigator, it shows the file system for the server that bliss is installed on.
If bliss listed the actual files within the Web UI, would that be ok? Were there things you know could not be achieved by doing this? I guess I'm asking what sort of things you would do with the OS navigator.
-
49 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Interesting use case @jake ... let me know if it works!
An error occurred while saving the comment @Anonymous (Johan Kraus) you can do this already using the track number padding rule (https://www.blisshq.com/music-library-management-blog/2011/07/16/padding-track-numbers-with-zero/) or if it's the files that are out of order, use <tracknumber:nn> : https://www.blisshq.com/music-library-management-blog/2011/12/14/new-release-20111206-padding-file-org-acoustic-fingerprints/index.html
An error occurred while saving the comment Yep, agree with that.
Not sure what you mean by "Once the files are hashed it's easy to detect corruption, but what about before that?" - isn't detection, and alerting of the issue, the end point?
An error occurred while saving the comment It's not supported by bliss currently but it's supported for any application that wants to get to it. It's in the METADATA_BLOCK_STREAMINFO header inside a FLAC file. The FLAC command ilne supports using it to test files: https://www.blisshq.com/music-library-management-blog/2015/03/31/test-flacs-corruption/
An error occurred while saving the comment The more I think about it the more I like this overall idea. Seems to be something a lot of audiophiles want.
It should also have the ability to plug into existing checksums, e.g. FLAC's own.
@Bernardo, in your case (2) would definitely be preferable.
I think this would just be a rule to monitor checksums and alert if one has changed.
An error occurred while saving the comment I've been talking to another user on email about this. The way he described it really made it sound like it would be a fitting part of bliss. These kind of things are discussed often over at Computer Audiophile.
It fits into the consistency - completeness - correctness mantra - maybe adding a new dimension: integrity or security?!
Titles?