Jump to content

Mike48

Members
  • Content Count

    110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mike48

  • Rank
    Freshman Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. My issue is that I still have not received the promised refund for the unused part of my high-priced subscription to Qobuz (after I re-subscribed at the lower price), despite several emails to customer service. Has any user received the promised refund? The lack of any reasonable answer to my questions is beginning to feel like a scam.
  2. This is not the same as I have requested, but it again shows the need for more structure in Favorite Releases, not just a big heap of albums sortable by very few factors. To sum up what would be nice and what has been suggested -- one or more of: Additional sort factors, including multifactor sort (including Genre, Label, release date . . .) User-created folders under Favorites for making sense of the heap. Sort or put into folders by label (publisher)
  3. Ability to sort favorite albums by genre, please. Multilevel sorting would be great -- genre, then artist or release title. Favorites is now a haystack, in which one tries to find the needle.
  4. Yes, I would like to see this, too. Only 6 (of Haydn's 84) are available, unless I've missed something. An issue with cataloging is that some of their recordings are under "Festetics Quartet" and others under "Quatuor Festetics." This is a general issue I've noticed for ensembles with non-English names, such as quartets and orchestras.
  5. Is there still no way to group favorite albums into subcategories or folders? Any intention to implement this? It's a big usability problem to have all "favorites" dumped together in one heap and not even separable by genre.
  6. I was quite enthusiastic about Qobuz at first. It's nice to have HR files without dealing with MQA. Yet, the US catalog still is far behind other services. Time and time again, I look for something out of the mainstream and find it's not there. Each time, I've found it on Amazon HD. This is discouraging, given the promises made by Qobuz that its US catalog was going to expand rapidly to become competitive with other services.
  7. What people seem to keep overlooking is that techniques for uniform and intelligent cataloging are known and are used in many other fields. Books, sheet music, electronic documents . . . all have yielded their chaos to the minds and fingers of professional catalogers -- specialists in library (or information) science. As I've said before (and won't say again -- I'm dropping out of the thread), it's clear that the current mess arose because Apple (who started this all) and then others never bothered to use qualified professionals to see how this should go. What they hacked together worked well enough for making money by selling pop music, so why do it right? I still believe that the only way this will be resolved is for the streaming services to hire some professionals in the field, and set them loose, either to do the work or to come up with proposed guidelines, then coax the record firms to implement them, as book publishers have done. It will not be solved by a bunch of amateurs, whether they be businessmen or audiophiles. I agree that there is value in crowd-sourcing -- if one doesn't need uniformity. I have noticed that on average I spend far less time fixing tags of a ripped CD than I do on a downloaded (classical) album. The CD's tags come through a number of databases drawn in by the ripping program -- dBpoweramp -- and populated in many cases by the "crowd." But if there was a standard, I'd spend even less time, as the databases would agree better and be more uniform. Because the current system works well enough for pop, which drives the economics, I won't be surprised if we more-or-less muddle along as we have been. If the changes reportedly being made by Qobuz come to fruition, that will be a nice interim step.
  8. Jim: Thanks for pointing that out. It is the sort of thing I was thinking of when I bemoaned the absence of professional library-science expertise at the streaming services. As it happens, my brother is a professional librarian specializing in digital media, so I know that such people exist. Unfortunately, the cataloging at both T and Q has been done haphazardly to the extreme, and apparently with no thought to standards, searchability, information content, and so on. How else can one take a track labeled simply: "Allegro"?
  9. If that's referring to my request for advanced (compound) search, you'll get a warm "Bravo!" from me when it's available.
  10. So then, is it possible to search for something like Composer = Beethoven, "simon rattle" ?
  11. It wasn't auto-complete. One or two of the items shown had pieces by various composers including Schobert, most were Schubert.
  12. I think what I would like, please, is a search model that, if I typed "Schobert" (or another valid name), would ask "Did you mean Schubert?" before assuming I was wrong, and provide "Yes" or "No" choices. That would, in my opinion, be a little more respectful of the user. It appears to me that many search problems come from not indexing "composer" (e.g.) as a full-fledged part of the metadata. Lumping bandleaders, pop singers, composers, conductors, and orchestras together as "artists" makes for poor search results. Doing so inconsistently makes for even worse ones.
  13. I was going to suggest you search on "Johann Schobert", until I tried it. Not good. Is there repertoire there that is not being found, to you think, or does Qobuz just not have the material?
  14. What I forgot to say is that, in JRiver, you can set up such displays to "sort in both directions," as they put it. What that means is, you don't have to start subsetting from the left. If you pick a choice in one of the later columns, the others columns' content will reflect that. So in my second screenshot, you could start by selecting an album artist and instrument, and see what composers are represented.
  15. Sure, here are two. The first setup is preset to show only tracks in the genres "Classical" and "Classical guitar", which I use as top-level descriptors. Then you can choose from there. The second setup lists only types of music that are or are similar to concertos. So if I want a clarinet concerto, it's easy to get a list. The bottom of each screen then shows the tracks that meet the criteria. I should note that empty values don't display. So in the first display, once I've chosen Aaron Copland as the composer, many subgenres disappear from the second column; e.g. opera, mass, sonata (string), sonata (wind), etc. I have JRiver set up with a split-screen display, so this part would occupy the right 60% or so of the screen. If I wanted to use the full screen, I'd consider adding more sorting variables (columns). Is it clear?
×
×
  • Create New...