pacemakerdevice.org

Hi Folks,

Wasn't too sure if this was to eager to put up yet, plus not the best location for this, think really needs to be own topic under Pacemaker Device section. Admin please feel free to move this around to where it's needed.

Think this is quite essential for the developers to find out what their users would like from the PM.
Obviously first step is to get the beta stable for official release, but where to go after that?

I'd like to suggest one thought i've just had for future development.

Any chance of having the option to import tracks that are analysed from Editor and have the pm device analyses these?
it seems to take an age to analyse a number of tracks and then to sync them takes a while longer.

Granted I've just reset and built the pm device to the beta and had to import my first 600 songs, but had to leave running over night, and found that it hadn't analysed 130, think i applied a filter when analysing.

And now waiting for the sync again no quick task.

so my first 3 wishes for the list...

1.improve analyse speed on editor.
2.Improve sync speed on editor.
3.Give Pacemaker ability to analyse, so could analyse songs as you load them up to play.

I was 2 days ahead of you mate, though I put mine in the Pacemaker Firmware section rather than general.
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=200

I will lock this thread and you can copy & paste your input in mine, as they said in Highlander.... There Can Be Only One!


To respond to your suggestions
1. The analysis is performed by a third party library which was licensed to Tonium and other to see if there is an upgrade available I don't think this is likely to be improved upon by the Pacemaker team. Unless that is they choose to implement analysis like they currently do on the Pacemaker Mobile Application (PMA).

2. To sync a track on the Pacemaker they have to do 3 things - update the PMD database with the track info - copy the beat file (the analysis output) - copy the track. Updating the DB would be very quick, and the beat files are relatively small, so I think the time taken will be copy the track itself over the USB connection. As a hardware upgrade to a later USB standard is not an option, again I don't think they will have much scope for improving this copy speed. As a test you could time how long it takes to copy 10 tracks to the device using the editor. Then try copying the same 10 tracks to the root folder of the device using Windows Explorer (or Mac equiv), then delete them again after. My bet is there will be no significant difference between the two methods. If this is the case, then yes it is purely down to the copy speed via USB.

3. I doubt the Pacemaker team would be looking to add analysis functionality UNLESS due to the common codebase with the PMA, it would be easy enough to do.


If analysis was moved to the PMD, what do you hope to acheive? The same amount of tracks would still need analysing, and I expect your PC processor is probably quicker at doing this than the PMD's processor would be. I estimate that your way it would take longer before your 600 songs were in the library, copied to PMD, then analysed by PMD so they are ready to play.

You might be interested to know how the PMA works with regards to analysis. With the PMA there is no associated editor or library manager, you simply copy the tracks to your device. The PMA application will perform analysis in the background for any track you load into a deck, if it doesn't already have the analysis info. This means you would put your 600 songs on there, and it would only analyse them on a need to know basis. Songs you have never played, I think don't get analysed. Also you can continue to use the track on the deck while the analysis is going on in the background. I think I prefer this way over the Pacemaker's method, and the analysis seems better to me too.



These were just my opinions and guess. Would still be worth adding your suggestions to my thread so the Pacemaker team can decide for themselves.