Audirvana Plus 2.6

[Krutsch]

Well, I am not having any of the above meta data issues, but my FLAC collection is organized for maximum compatibility with MPD-based streaming devices, which are sensitive to multi-disc album organization, as well as lots of other issues.

 

However, with 2.6, I've observed that the user interface does a lot of "jumping around" when browsing. Frankly, it's unnerving when you click on a little arrow to open an accordion panel and it opens "upwards" instead of opening "downwards" without scrolling the content pane. I am describing the main Library window with view options set to sort by: Genre, Album Artist, Album Title.

 

Everything sorts correctly, but the opening upwards is counter to how accordion panels function, pretty much elsewhere. It makes it cumbersome to browse through a genre, quickly, to see if you want to play something inside, as you *always* need to scroll after opening if you want to close it again and try another container within the accordion panel.

 

I would be curious to read the justification for that design choice.

 

There are other examples of unexpected scrolling/jumping when things are clicked on, but this example is the most irritating and is a new behavior from 2.5.X.

[Krutsch]

The application itself is very fine, but the interface is mess.

 

I'm afraid I have to agree. I feel bad saying that, as I've spent many hours with Audirvana over the years.

 

I've commented about the "jumping" UI behavior of the 2.6 release, but it goes far deeper than that (e.g. conflicting colors used for highlighting and selecting, for starters).

 

Few people appreciate the incredible design detail that's gone into iTunes and Audirvana is simply clumsy to use and uncomfortable to look at, IMO.

 

Damien could address a lot of it with the assistance of a seasoned visual and/or interaction designer, but like most talented software engineers, he doesn't see the value.

 

With Roon adopting multi-channel support in 1.3, I will finally settle-in with Roon as my music manager, as Darko put it: "...to grow old with."

[Krutsch]

 

Of course this doesn't mean UI suggestions are not helpful. However, I think it's incorrect to conclude from the fact you might still wish some things to be changed that Damien sees no value in Audirvana's UI.

 

That's not what I said, but I expected such a response.

 

I know he values the Audirvana UI - I am saying that he doesn't value the assistance of a visual designer. This isn't open source software, anymore, and we have all been happy to pay for it.

 

But the reality is this: he's competing against *teams* of developers, who are also supported by licensed software that generates revenue. In the case of Roon and iTunes, they understand that the user experience is more than just some guy "...wishing some things to be changed...".

[Krutsch]

I think, again, it isn't that he doesn't *value* it (whether it be the UI itself or the assistance of a visual designer in order to work on the UI, which is perhaps a rather fine distinction); it is that he is not a large company that can take the decision to hire an employee or consultant as a matter of routine, but must weigh whether he should take that step at this stage while he is still a sole proprietor. So this is to some extent the flip side of the thought that he is competing against teams.

 

Fair enough... I do this for a living and if Damien is interested, I will offer a heuristic review and design recommendations for the UX, free of charge - no strings or expectations, whatsoever. Not looking for work here, but would like to see A+ improve in this area and I can help.

 

-- Ken

[Krutsch]

 

1 - There are recognized standards for tagging that have existed for a long time, and Apple has decided not to comply with them.

 

2 - Apple has decided not to comply with them in different ways at different times, i.e., Apple is not only inconsistent with the standards, it is inconsistent with its own previous practices.

 

 

For 1., I would agree except for Work and Movement. There are/have been a number of work-arounds (pun intended), but no long-accepted standards.

 

For 2., it's true, Apple changed from using Grouping to store Work to a separate Work/Movement tag arrangement.

 

Backwards compatibility is nice, but I applaud these changes as a clean/better solution, moving forward. I am mostly finished moving my collection over to the new tagging, using the excellent Apple Scripts from dougscripts for this task.

 

As for 3., well... ah... welcome to software development when building a product that leverages someone else's customer base and apps.

[Krutsch]

Though in fairness, Damien offered the option not to use iTunes quite early on.

 

Sure, but the real issue is not iTunes ... it's additional tags in media files managed by iTunes (ALAC, MP3, AAC). Not supporting these additional tags is perfectly fine and is his choice; but, I don't see how it's not something that can't be considered later on.

 

Speaking personally, I do all of my metadata management in iTunes (for my AIFF library) and then play with Audirvana (i.e. iTunes Media/Music as a watched folder). I suspect that I am not alone in this regard.

[Krutsch]

Apple never used Grouping (which in iTunes doesn't actually group a thing) for Work

If some users did... it only was *their* personal choice

 

Work and Part are now finally there to solve *that* issue

 

Not true. AAC media purchased on iTunes that are Classical music files did (and still do) populate the Grouping tag with the Work.

[Krutsch]

... and does it actually do anything apart just sitting there in your files?

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]33643[/ATTACH]

 

Yes. When I view the same file in OTHER media players, like Audirvana, it displays the tracks with the same Grouping as a Movement. Of course, there was nothing to separate out the duplication with the song title.

 

To my earlier comment: I believe Apple planned on doing something with this tag, but realized that they needed two, separate tags, to manage work/movement. Hence the welcomed change.