Petteri Hintsanen <pette...@iki.fi> writes: > Pierre Neidhardt <ambre...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Wow, it's more like 2 tracks per second here on my machine :( >> Am I doing something wrong? > > Probably not. My "estimate" was really just a guess. > >> Is there any drawback in using MPD? I actually wonder if MPD shouldn't >> be the natural backend for EMMS. Re-implementing caching and metadata >> extraction seems like re-inventing the wheel. > > No. I have used MPD on some machines, it works well. But the version I > ran did not recognize albumartist etc. Recent versions do, however. > > I wouldn't dare to call any backend "natural", as I would expect users > to have wildly different setups. They are emacs users, after all... > Also, MPD takes more effort to set up properly.
My latest fix for later-do dramatacally improves info query performance. Default should be around 40 tracks per second (this is customizable). Considering this, it makes MPD far less necessary for Emms. -- Pierre Neidhardt
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Emms-help mailing list Emms-help@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emms-help
