I feel like I should know this, but I can't find anything in the FAQ and I can't figure out a good search on the BBS, so here goes:

There's an option that can be set on a playlist called ``Always randomize contents''. This seems to randomize the next lower level only, so that if you selected it on ``Nirvana'', it would play ``Bleach'', ``Nevermind'', etc. in random order, but each album would have the tracks in their natural order. This is cool.

However, I want to be able to get it to play all of the tracks within a playlist in random order. Selecting ``100 percent of tracks at random'' doesn't seem to do it either (also only deals with only the next level, maybe?). I recognize that I can manually turn on ``Shuffle'' mode, but it seems like I ought to be able to mark a playlist to do this.

Am I missing something?

Umm, it's called Always Randomize Contents. As you mentioned at the top of your post.

It doesn't work on the next level down. It works on the list you set it for, and not any further (ie. the items in the list, not the items in any sublists). So you have to set it for every list whose contents you want to be selected at random. So try it for the actual list that contains songs (Bleach for instance).

Of course now there will be no way not to play them at random by selecting the playlist.

Bruno

Well, our terminology differs as to what the next level down is, but yeah.

The thing is that I would like to be able to mark the root playlist as ``always shuffle'' and not have its children marked that way, so that if I select the root playlist to play, it'll shuffle everything, but if I select anything else underneath it, then it plays non-shuffled, unless I specifically have shuffle on.

Even if you select the "random" option for each sub-playlist, all you end up with is those songs grouped together in a random order. To get the songs in a sub-playlist shuffled apart, I am pretty sure the only way is to turn the shuffle mode on manually.

-Jeff

However, I want to be able to get it to play all of the tracks within a playlist in random order. Selecting ``100 percent of tracks at random'' doesn't seem to do it either (also only deals with only the next level, maybe?). I recognize that I can manually turn on ``Shuffle'' mode, but it seems like I ought to be able to mark a playlist to do this.

You could always make a second playlist which is a flattened version of the first one, and mark it always-randomise.

Peter

There's an option that can be set on a playlist called ``Always randomize contents''

As a corollary to that option, wouldn't it be nice if you could set an option on a playlist called "Never randomize contents"? This would be used for audiobooks, sound tracks, and albums where it is important that they be played in order.

There was a short-lived thread back in January about this (see here) but it never really caught on. Maybe this time will be different?

tanstaafl.

I agree, Doug, I would love to see a "never randomize contents" option to a playlist.

There are certain playlists where I always have to turn off Shuffle before selecting them. I would love to be able to skip the extra keystroke(s) associated with turning off shuffle in those cases.

Yes! I totally agree. This would allow my bound-playlists (songs with intros together) not to get shuffled.

-Jeff

I think I might have a solution that might work for both Bitt's dilemma and Doug/Tony's proposal of a "never randomize contents" option... It could be complicated to implement, and without knowing how the Empeg normally generates running orders, it's hard for me to know if it'll work, but let's throw it on the wall and see if it sticks....

How about having one tri-state check box named "Randomize Contents" such that:
checked - means it always randomizes contents no matter what
unchecked - means it never randomizes contents no matter what
grey-checked - (in-between checked and unchecked) means "go with the flow" and randomize if the *parent playlist* is set to always randomize, and don't randomize if the parent playlist is set to "don't randomize".

Grey-checked would be the default.

This would work different than the current behavior (I think) where the sub-playlists aren't checked to see if their randomize contents flag is set. This is the part that would make generating running orders more complex, because it would require diving into the sub-playlist structure n-levels deep.

Some examples of how this might work:

1. Bitt's Nirvana example, or "play all albums randomly, but each track in order, while *NOT* in shuffle mode."
Can already be done with existing "always randomize contents." To implement in my scheme, the Nirvana playlist would be checked, and the album playlists would be unchecked (for never randomize.)

2. Bitt's Nirvana wish, or "play all tracks in this playlist, and all of its sub-playlists, in random order, while *NOT* in shuffle mode."
Can't be done with existing functionality. In my scheme, root playlist gets "always randomize contents," sub playlists are grey-checked. Since the parent is set to always randomize, the sub-playlists will inherit that, and all Nirvana songs will be shuffled.

3. Doug and Tony's "never randomize contents", while *IN* shuffle mode.
Can't be done now. In my scheme just uncheck the "randomize contents" box.

"But Tony, since playlists are symbolic links, they can have multiple parents, what does "parent playlist" mean?

Well, in this context, the "parent" starts with whatever playlist you "drilled down to" in the playlist menu. So if I drill down to the Nirvana playlist, and it has the box checked for "always randomize," and the album playlists (Bleach, Nevermind, etc.) have it grey-checked, they inherit the "always randomize" behavior. However, if you browse to another playlist which happens to contain those album playlists, then the album playlists would inherit the behavior from *that* playlist instead, which might be "never randomize" or might even also be "inherit from parent." However (and this part is kind of interesting) if you browse down to a parent which has the default grey check (meaning no preference for randomize or not) I would propose that the sub-playlists which also have no preference would automatically get the behavior of whatever shuffle mode you might be in. That would allow Bitt's "Root playlist randomizes, but any sub-playlist plays in order" wish. (I think!)

It's a little mind bending to think of all the possibilities, and I'm sure the algorithm for generating running orders is already pretty complicated. I'm sure Peter can (if he can understand my rambling) shed light on if it's even possible to implement a scheme like this. But I think this would allow for a LOT of flexibility in how playlists are randomized/ordered, without having to explicitly turn shuffle on.

So, the real question, will anyone at all understand what I'm saying in this post? Including me?

Hi.

I either did not understand what you where writing, or it is an extremely complex solution for something that could be easier. Here is my proposal, which _should_ be relatively easy to implement, if I am thinking right.

In my model, a playlist can have any of the following modes (one exlusively):

1. always randomize complete playlist (this playlist and below)
2. always randomize this level
3. never randomize complete playlist (this playlist and below) aka. handle complete playlist as a single track (except for display purposes)
4. never randomize this level (but randomize included playlists)
5. never mind/inherit current parent
   

Note that inherit current parent is part of my proposal as well as part of yours, but if I understood you correctly, they differ a little in their meaning.

My suggestion is that shuffle mode overrides whatever the current playlist is set to. So even if the current playlist is set to "never randomize", turning shuffle mode on would shuffle it anyway. However, if you select a playlist that is set to one of the "never randomize" modes, shuffle get's turned off automatically.
When descending the playlist tree from the current selection, keep a memory of whatever the current shuffle toggle ("shuffle" vs. "don't shuffle") is. Modes that only apply to the current level only do not modify the toggle, so if you descend from playlist A "always shuffle complete" through playlist B "never shuffle this level" to C "never mind", a temporary running order of A1, A2, .., B, .., An. At this point, the running order get's shuffled and saved for later reference. Now B get's expanded (in order), with it's playlists each handled according to their settings and the current shuffle toggle (which is still at "shuffle completely"). After this is completed (possibly recursing this algo), B get's replaced by its expansion in the previously saved expansion of playlist A.
Oh well, did I say my proposal would be less complicated than yours? Never mind...
However, I think that a tristate toggle is insufficient and unintuitive (especially the question of the "grey checked" setting's behaviour). However, each of the two proposals is complicated and can only be implemented by a recursive algorithm (even though that could possibly be flattened, it would stil be basically recursive).

I REALLY HOPE SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPENS SOMETIME, better sooner than later.

BTW: As far as I remember, there was a "interpret playlist as single track" flag in the metadata-FIDs, which would translate to the "never randomize, including childs" setting, I guess.

cu,
sven