View Issue Details
|ID||Project||Category||View Status||Date Submitted||Last Update|
|0017779||MediaMonkey 5||Main Panel||public||2021-04-21 16:25||2021-04-29 14:23|
|Target Version||5.1||Fixed in Version||5.0.1|
|Summary||0017779: Unanalyzed volume node tweaks|
|Description||Testing the 'Files to Edit > Unanalyzed volume''node because of issue reported at https://www.mediamonkey.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=98859|
1) Unanalyzed volume lists also deadlinks, this used to be the case in MM4 too, is that's intentional ?
2) Selecting a single file under the Unanalyzed volume node > right-click > Analyze volume
=> only 'Track volume' is calculated (even when MM is configured to analyze also Album volume)
=> thus the track does not disappear from the list of unanalyzed files
Testing in MM4 and it works same way in the MM4, is this intentional?
Shouldn't MM always calculate the album volume (even when a single track is selected to calculate the volume) ?
3) User reported that list grows with files being played (i.e. a refresh issue falsely adding files to the list after playing), I am unable to replicate this so far though
EDIT: After some further tests I am able to replicate
|Tags||No tags attached.|
|Fixed in build||2400|
Item 3 is fixed in 18.104.22.1680
Rusty, I am not sure about items 1&2 -- as these bugs exist in MM4 too and this functionality has been developed before I joint the MM team,
can you please review what is the correct/intentional behaviour here ?
1) Re. deadlinks: I suppose that we should take a common approach for _all_ files to edit nodes. e.g. Unknown Artist / Unknown Rating etc. should all work in the same manner. My intuition is that just as deadlinks/inaccessible files normally appear in the library, they should appear in these nodes as well and the user can user Filter functionality to filter them out if so desired.
What could be interesting is to associate these nodes with a filter. e.g. if this node was activated with a filter to hide inaccessible and the user could then easily disable it if desired.
2) This may require a separate bug, but we can continue the discussion here until we decide that a change is really needed:
I think that most users would expect that the logic for analysing a track's volume in this node would be the same as the logic for analyzing a track's volume elsewhere in the library. So the question becomes how should MM handle volume analysis when only a subset of tracks on an album are chosen to be analyzed (which might often be the case for tracks in the 'Unanalyzed volume' node, and is likely always the case for automatic volume leveling).
I'm not sure whether MM is already doing this or not (0001330 seems to indicate that it doesn't), but the most desirable approach would probably be one similar to that used when the user attempts to save album art for only a single track on an album: in that case, the user is asked whether to '[ ] Apply to all files in the album/series'. In the case of attempting to apply Album Volume leveling when only a single track is chosen, a similar approach can be taken i.e.
- MM should analyze all files in the album/series
- To correct for cases in which there are duplicate tracks from the same album, we may want to include logic so that only one instance of the duplicate (preferably the one in the same directory as the majority of tracks from the album) should be included in the Album Volume calculation (other instances should probably be treated as independent?).
We could make this an optional config entry:
[ ] Album Volume analysis: Apply to all files in the album/series
But I don't think it's really necessary.
||ok, moving target for 1&2 out of 5.0.1|