Author Topic: music library size  (Read 12282 times)

jukejohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 745
Re: music library size
« Reply #15 on: October 24, 2013, 08:20:47 PM »
ok keep me updated see if everything is ok as you load up

Steve

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2311
    • Jukeblaster.com
Re: music library size
« Reply #16 on: October 24, 2013, 10:23:08 PM »

Bob, I wouldn't 'dirty' your music library just to see how much it will take to break your install, this is the wrong approach and one which John seems to have adopted.
Simply carry on as you are being careful to name and arrange your files properly and you will be just fine.  :D

John, you just have way too much music for any jukebox (commercial or otherwise), the sheer volume of files will make searching impossible!, because even a simple search term will take so long that you would give up & it will return so many search results that you would need yet another search to search through the returned results!!.
Also, despite what you think your collection will be peppered with broken tags and corrupt files so my advice to you is to follow Bob's example, start with a 'vanilla' windows install and then build your music library again...

Go for quality not quantity!.  ;D


Send us some crypto :-)
It helps us pay for the forum and new jukebox developments


Bitcoin
bc1qlfjvxfpj75wcpraa5phvvxjpc9w7dxhd8y9s0k

Doge
DGvvJZ6JNxcGtSSbgjaNE5zDe13YWwaPVE


jukejohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 745
Re: music library size
« Reply #17 on: October 24, 2013, 10:28:49 PM »
hmmmmmm
we will see

cyberbob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
Re: music library size
« Reply #18 on: October 24, 2013, 10:35:50 PM »
Ahh Dirty means 2k to type up, I've checked other than that :)

Sorry maybe I mis understand dirty. I just cant bring myself to not put nice typed for the tags onto it, its a different gravy with the label's correct. even if it did start to stall at 10k id be happy with that any more will be a bonus ill start removing duplicates if any as well .

to be fair im sure it will be plenty big enough for me and my needs :) but I will update, as I see it as a challenge and ive put months of effort into mine .


jukejohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 745
Re: music library size
« Reply #19 on: October 24, 2013, 11:29:28 PM »
in the meantime im gonna put vjb pro on my laptop I do have a duplicate drive of my music collection im gonna go through them collection by collection and reinspect my albums and tags mp3s only not videos this will take sometime its not a high spec laptop 2gb memory 1.5ghz Celeron cpu so if I do well on this laptop it stands a better chance on my main system

I only have one theory left about the search speed on my collection is it that I use mini itx mobos don't use anything else for my juke projects however its the dual core atom cpu 1.8 ghz so maybe its these cpu's that cant cope with videojukebox

just a thought

jukejohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 745
Re: music library size
« Reply #20 on: October 25, 2013, 04:52:13 PM »
seems size does matter  ;)

droped my collection down to 170gb a big improvement get results in about 4/5 seconds checked files and tags so far so good ;D
just formatting and gonna try mini xp will report back dudes  :)

cyberbob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
Re: music library size
« Reply #21 on: October 25, 2013, 10:07:35 PM »
I would say and I could be wrong here,

its kinda like media centre, ie a front end, a good one at that .

well mines pentuin d duo core, I wouldn't really use anything less, it flies on i5 test laptop, but im soon too take it off that

jukejohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 745
Re: music library size
« Reply #22 on: October 25, 2013, 10:28:26 PM »
got it working a lot better put not as fast as yours going to try it on a amd mobo 3gb mem and I think 3gb cpu

cyberbob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
Re: music library size
« Reply #23 on: October 25, 2013, 11:08:53 PM »
Glad to hear it

a decent Intel chip and board is best m8 amd run too hot, that's what i think and have found, think just a plodder really nowadays something quad core 2 duo, should do the trick really,

I don't use amd or micros m8. I consider them dirty I like run for as many years as possible, or its a bus mans holiday I favour dell also, you would be surprised where you find there run and for what, but they do it fine day to day 

 

jukejohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 745
Re: music library size
« Reply #24 on: October 25, 2013, 11:43:24 PM »
yes im a Intel man myself just trying to prove a point with this amd board
you can get a dell pc cheap on eBay which is what I might do when I Finnish experimenting

cyberbob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
Re: music library size
« Reply #25 on: October 26, 2013, 08:26:59 PM »
Mee too

they just last longer but don't burn as bright. short term there fine longer term Intel all the way, even then these good and bad chips :(



jukejohn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 745
Re: music library size
« Reply #26 on: October 26, 2013, 09:07:01 PM »
just tried a intel 478 3ghz mobo average search result about 4 secs just gonna try it on a 775 3ghz mobo wich im a fan of these cpu's

when you tagged your files did you do them artist-title or title-artist

cyberbob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
Re: music library size
« Reply #27 on: October 27, 2013, 11:06:40 AM »
478 m8 don't bother no FSB and to be fair well dated not even entry level today.

775 should be fine, but you want a core 2 duo or pentuim d at least.

that's my view, it uses windows and windows resources to work.

I used win 7 turned off area theme and plain desktop, nothing much else is running on it other then video box and a few required services.

tagging, that's upto you. I went for top line the song bottom line the artist, I renamed and space tracks by hand checking them every album till I was happy. if that helps

cyberbob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
Re: music library size
« Reply #28 on: October 27, 2013, 11:52:05 AM »
Chips and ram types make big differences along with the MB to.

get a get entry level board about 40 or 50 quid. add the core 2 chip and, well you will see yourself.

even good used cpu these days are only 15 quid, use old psu old ram if good ram, a decent new hdd & you should see results, it runs so fast on my laptops I5 ssd, with the same hdd for files external. all I can say m8 is the setup up matters, if its running could enough as a pc it will run vb.

a nice 8m quad would be batter than a 2m core 2 duo, even that's entry level nowdays, and some of the older cpus are better than newer ones, its not just a cast of 3.00 ghz ect ect.

hope that makes some sense,
 

cyberbob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 59
Re: music library size
« Reply #29 on: October 27, 2013, 11:55:48 AM »
sorry I went for top line artist bottom line, song

I tried both ways and just preferred the look, there was no real reason I remember doing it,