Recommended Posts

Really? It needs to index you files to get Artist, Album, Song, and cover to display to you, how else is it going to show you your library? 

Winamp does the same thing and it doesn't index a damn thing, I just add the folder and that's it. Or maybe it does it, but with so little memory and CPU usage that you never notice. That's why I was asking.

Winamp does the same thing and it doesn't index a damn thing, I just add the folder and that's it. Or maybe it does it, but with so little memory and CPU usage that you never notice. That's why I was asking.

 

Nonsense!  Windows DOES read all the information - once when it first encounters the music.

Winamp does the same thing and it doesn't index a damn thing, I just add the folder and that's it. Or maybe it does it, but with so little memory and CPU usage that you never notice. That's why I was asking.

 

Your PC is indexing your files... so you can search what you look for...  If index is off, you will have hard tine finding the files via search. If it's off, you can look for whatever you are looking for manually in the Windows Explorer instead of using the search.

 

So this music player is indexing the songs/albums so you can search for what you look for in quick time. If you don't like it, then don't download it...  but it does not hurt in any harm to your PC.  PC is fine since it is indexing without your knowledge. Don't believe us, look up in the settings on your PC.

Your PC is indexing your files... so you can search what you look for...  If index is off, you will have hard tine finding the files via search. If it's off, you can look for whatever you are looking for manually in the Windows Explorer instead of using the search.

 

So this music player is indexing the songs/albums so you can search for what you look for in quick time. If you don't like it, then don't download it...  but it does not hurt in any harm to your PC.  PC is fine since it is indexing without your knowledge. Don't believe us, look up in the settings on your PC.

I know about Windows's indexing thing. And I never said I don't like this app or whatever, you clearly didn't get why I asked about indexing. Look at my previous post about Winamp and see why is confusing for me.

Winamp does the same thing and it doesn't index a damn thing, I just add the folder and that's it. Or maybe it does it, but with so little memory and CPU usage that you never notice. That's why I was asking.

It sure does index - just tossed WinAmp into a sandbox, first run, just added a music directory with only a few hundred titles in it...

 

winampyzy.png

I wasn't talking to you. And no, you didn't answer. I was talking about WINAMP, you said WINDOWS.

 

Winamp and Dopamine may be used by the differrent language they used to develop with. I mean, Visual Basic, Visual Studio.NET, C++, C #... whatever they use... 

 

Some developers can make the app however they want.  It's their decision to add indexing or not based on their app.

 

It does not matter if it has indexing or not...  You have NOTHING to worry about. It helps finding the songs quicker for you and cache them if necessary.

It sure does index - just tossed WinAmp into a sandbox, first run, just added a music directory with only a few hundred titles in it...

 

winampyzy.png

So it does this only when using the media library, not the normal playlist? I never used the library feature, only the playlist, and there doesn't seem to be any activity there once I add music folders.

It does not matter if it has indexing or not...  You have NOTHING to worry about. It helps finding the songs quicker for you and cache them if necessary.

I know, I asked only because you guys seem to have problem with this thing in Dopamine (like taking a loooong time to index a large collection). So I thought it's something that we can live without.

So it does this only when using the media library, not the normal playlist? I never used the library feature, only the playlist, and there doesn't seem to be any activity there once I add music folders.

Well sure, if you don't actually tell it anything about any existing files it's got nothing to do but play whatever it's directly told.. it won't have a clue about other files that are elsewhere, hence building up that library index.  *shrug* I typically don't use libraries either, I just fire off whatever tracks via a file manager or the start menu, the wife on the other hand prefers browsing thru her player, which is where those libraries come in.  Besides, it's a once and done thing usually, they typically check for new/deleted tracks on startup but that's usually near instant, it's just that first run that can take a while if you have a gazillion tracks.

Well sure, if you don't actually tell it anything about any existing files it's got nothing to do but play whatever it's directly told.. it won't have a clue about other files that are elsewhere, hence building up that library index.  *shrug* I typically don't use libraries either, I just fire off whatever tracks via a file manager or the start menu, the wife on the other hand prefers browsing thru her player, which is where those libraries come in.

I don't get this. What I do is click on the "Add folder" button in playlist editor (Shift+L) and choose my music folder, with all its subfolders. Everything gets added instantly. Covers show up only on play, is this what you're referring to?

So it does this only when using the media library, not the normal playlist? I never used the library feature, only the playlist, and there doesn't seem to be any activity there once I add music folders.

I know, I asked only because you guys seem to have problem with this thing in Dopamine (like taking a loooong time to index a large collection). So I thought it's something that we can live without.

 

Not me. I have my own player project that I developed about 20 years ago but it is in storage right now. It was used for personal use. I have not released it to public yet.

 

Keep this in mind. it could take awhile depends on the amount of files it is indexing. Once it's done. you have nothing to worry about.

Winamp does the same thing and it doesn't index a damn thing, I just add the folder and that's it. Or maybe it does it, but with so little memory and CPU usage that you never notice. That's why I was asking.

All library based media players index files. Some players can be used as library based or just playlist based, such as winamp and foobar2000. Winamp does index if you use its media library, but winamp does allow you to use it as 'playlist only' without indexing the entire library. 

 

dopamine is a library based player, so of course its going to index the library.

  • Like 3

All library based media players index files. Some players can be used as library based or just playlist based, such as winamp and foobar2000. Winamp does index if you use its media library, but winamp does allow you to use it as 'playlist only' without indexing the entire library. 

 

dopamine is a library based player, so of course its going to index the library.

That's exactly my point. Why go with the library thing when there's the other solution? I mean, what are the advantages of this compared to the playlist thing?

That's exactly my point. Why go with the library thing when there's the other solution? I mean, what are the advantages of this compared to the playlist thing?

The library would be managed by the media program, as long as you put your music in the folders you specified. It will auto-index the songs for you, and essentially manages the content for you. You can create playlists based on music in your library, and sync that to other devices. If you have a music collection on your local computer, it's easier to have a program like Dopamine/WMP/iTunes/etc. since you can open the program and play any song you like, rather than opening up songs in a playlist based player without library management.

 

I used to use Winamp back in the day, like you would. My music was not organized, and nothing was tagged properly. A few years ago, I decided to sit down and organize everything in a hierarchy. I also tagged everything properly with album art. I since then use library based programs like MediaMonkey, WMP, etc. It's just so much easier to set it and forget it.

  • Like 2

That's exactly my point. Why go with the library thing when there's the other solution? I mean, what are the advantages of this compared to the playlist thing?

Different people want different things.  I don't use playlists or a library, never have, I just fire the tracks off directly from my launcher or file manager.  The wife on the other hand likes to browse her library thru her player, which typically not only lets you edit metadata in place but actually build those playlists to begin with.. a hell of a lot easier than doing it in a text editor.. your preferred method doesn't work if you don't actually have playlists created to begin with. 

 

Options are a good thing.

Hi all, I seem to have missed a bit of action today :)

Dopamine is indeed a library based player. And not everyone has to be happy about that.

I wanted to display track information in a very graphical way (tag and cover info). And I want to add rating and smart playlists. I have no idea how foobar or winamp do this. But, as far as I know, if you want to keep the UI responsive while displaying tag and cover info, you have to index some things. It is overkill for the UI to fetch this info on the fly from the audio files each time you load them in the application. Of course, indexing takes some time. It will probably improve in future builds (Remember, we're still in a very early stage of development. A few weeks ago, his thing didn't even play music). But even if speed improves, it wil still take quite some time if you have a massively big collection.

  • Like 1

Really enjoying this - only used musicX previously.

 

Any chance of having a "lazy mode" please? I like to select an artist, hit play or shuffle and let it get on with it :)

 

You're talking about the fact that the play button doesn't do anything yet and you have to double-click a track to actually play something?

If yes, the answer is: yes, that is coming very soon :)

This is by far one of the best looking music players available on Windows (which is a really bold statement considering it is not even complete yet); I have been looking for something to replace iTunes on my PC (I am using a HIDPI display and iTunes looks horrible on it) and this is exactly what I have been looking for (clean UI, stable [more stable for me than the Xbox Music app which has seen multiple supposed production releases], and provides all needed functionality [should be even more functional as more of the coming soon features are added]); in fact, even if I were happy with iTunes on Windows I would still migrate to this because the UI is wonderful. I cannot wait to see what the Songs and Playlists view will look like, and I am already trying out your other apps. Wonderful work Raphael.

Finally got around to trying it on my main pc, working great so far, extremely polished for an initial preview release :)

 

Only issue I see so far is some tag reading weirdness with AC/DC:

 

 

Foobar2000 and even windows explorer see it properly as 'AC/DC', but for some reason dopamine sees it as 'AC; DC' and/or 'AC':

TzdWFJZ.png

Finally got around to trying it on my main pc, working great so far, extremely polished for an initial preview release :)

 

Only issue I see so far is some tag reading weirdness with AC/DC:

 

 

Foobar2000 and even windows explorer see it properly as 'AC/DC', but for some reason dopamine sees it as 'AC; DC' and/or 'AC':

 

Nice catch - AC/DC bug affects me too. Mine shows AC, just like Viper's screenshot.

Really enjoying this - only used musicX previously.

 

Any chance of having a "lazy mode" please? I like to select an artist, hit play or shuffle and let it get on with it :)

 

Select artist and hit play? That is how it works right now unless i'm missing something.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • Thanks Microsoft but no, I find both iterations of Outlook terrible nowadays and switched back to Thunderbird at home.
    • Happens to the best of us, bro. 😛 
    • Thanks to some of the other recent Windows improvements, I'm optimistic about this one. My quick wishlist would be: perf like the older menu, merge both menus or at the very least, the older menu should be a flyout, not a simulated click to the old menu, and lastly, a customization window to let users move items from one menu to another, so I could bring Send To back to the main menu, and the OneDrive settings to the older.
    • This Gigabyte AMD RX 9070 XT is very good deal despite the launch of 9070 GRE by Sayan Sen Recently we reviewed AMD's latest 1440p gaming card, the Radeon RX 9070 GRE 12GB, for $549. The card is in stock too at that price, though if you want significantly better performance and don't mind spending a bit more, the Gigabyte Gaming model of RX 9070 XT is currently on sale for just $650 (purchase link under the specs table down below). The card employs Gigabyte's WINDFORCE cooling system which combines multiple design elements such as alternate-spinning Hawk fans, a vapor chamber, and composite heat pipes to manage heat dissipation. The Server-grade Thermal conductive gel further helps in this department. The inclusion of a semi-passive cooling mode allows the fans to remain inactive under low workloads, which allows for reduced noise operation during lighter usage. There is dual BIOS switch that allows toggling between performance and silent modes. The technical specifications of the Gigabyte Radeon RX 9070 XT GAMING OC 16G are given in the table below: Specification Value Core Clock Boost Clock: up to 3060 MHz Game Clock: up to 2520 MHz Stream Processors 4096 Memory Clock 20 Gbps Memory Size 16GB Memory Type GDDR6 Memory Bus 256-bit Card Bus Interface PCI Express 5.0 Maximum Resolution 7680 × 4320 Multi-View Support 4 displays Card Dimensions L=288 mm, W=132 mm, H=56 mm Recommended Power Supply 750W Power Connectors 3 × 8-pin Video Outputs 2 × DisplayPort 2.1a 2 × HDMI 2.1b Get it at the link below: GIGABYTE Radeon RX 9070 XT Gaming OC 16GB Graphics Card, GV-R9070XTGAMING OC: $649.99 (Sold and Shipped by Amazon US) (Was: $740) This Amazon deal is US-specific and not available in other regions unless specified. This is a first-party seller link (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you also purchase from a first-party seller link only. If you don't like it or want to look at more options, check out the previous deals that we have covered, OR you can also visit Amazon US deals page. Get Prime (SNAP), Prime Video, Audible Plus or Kindle / Music Unlimited. Free for 30 days. As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      CHUNWEI earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Conversation Starter
      FBSPL earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Week One Done
      I2D earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Dr Jared Dental Studio earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      RG INVESTMENT GROUP earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      463
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      252
    3. 3
      Skyfrog
      80
    4. 4
      FloatingFatMan
      63
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      62
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!