rather than to insert in the queue. I always have to delete the queue, as there is no way to change the queue without stopping music.
just two examples:
i am exploring music, e.g. from new releases, I start an album, after the first or some tracks I want to continue with the next album, I have to delete the queue first before I choose “Add next from here” or stop the music and choose “Play from here” to get the queue deleted.
when playing albums or playlists, especially with friends, if changing the mind to continue with something different I too have to delete the queue or stop the music first.
Actually I don’t know a use case, when “Add next from here” should not delete the existing queue, but maybe others have this case. As well with albums as a whole, I do not see a use case where the queue should be kept after choosing “Add next” for an album.
I sure see a use case, where some would like to insert a song in an existing queue/playlist, but to play a single song without to delete the queue or stopping music first makes a lot of sense too I think.
So maybe there could be another option, like “Insert in queue (…next from here)” and “Play next (…from here)”
If you want to destroy the queue, simply press play on the album or track. Add next is non-destructive, and rightly inserts the album or track into the queue.
If I press play on the album or track the current music will stop with immediate cut off, I mostly don’t like such hard jumping, especially being with friends this is a no go.
This way the queue gets bigger and bigger and if I not use “Add next” before my last choice ends, it will start over to the former queue. I just wonder, if there are use cases why Roon should work like this? I would prefer not having to clear the queue manually to listen seamlessly.
go to queue and click “clear upcoming”. that will remove everything after the currently playing track, which keeps playing. Then add to the queue as desired.
Yep, that’s what I do all the time, with every change of what I am listening I have to clear the queue first.
When exploring albums, I must clear the queue with every single album. I just wonder, why the queue is cleared when choosing “play now” and not cleared when wanting “play next” to avoid interruption of the current song. I think there is only the additional option “Insert next” needed, if anybody would need that at all other then with single songs.
Play now, Play from here and Start radio are destructive, whereas Add next (for obvious reasons) and Queue are non-destructive. You may customize the default actions in Settings.
It seems to me that Roon does what you need, and your gripe is that pause / play actions don’t fade in and out (ugh! )
In addition to Clear upcoming, as previously mentioned, you can easily edit the queue, too. Either remove individual items or select multiple tracks.
Thank you Martin! For me thats an inconsistent behavior of play actions, especially as I cant imagine, what these obvious reasons could be? The behavior of „play next“ cannot be changed in settings as far I have seen.
However, I and all people in club meetings prefer to hear a song until end before a new queue starts, for this I must delete the existing queue first, or press „play“ right when the running song ends. Forgetting to delete the queue before changing to another music as well corrupts the roon radio feature, as it does not continue with songs similar to the last ones, but jump back to the old queue.
For me thats very annoying, I thought another queue behavior could be better for most others too.
I said the default behaviour can be changed, not the function of a play action.
There is only one queue per zone. You add music to it, either at the end, or the beginning—after the current track has finished playing. Occasionally, you may delete a track or album. Seems like it’s exactly what you and the club want.
Radio starts, optionally, when the queue is empty or if the play action is used; no need to delete the queue.
I think you are creating problems that simply don’t exist.
Why? If you’re constantly deciding that you want to listen to a different album before the one you’re currently listening to ends, then ‘Add Next’ will do exactly what you want - start the next album after the current track finishes. Sure, you’ll end up with a whole bunch of tracks at the end of the queue, but you can delete all of them at the end of your listening session. There’s no need to delete anything before switching to a different album.
I am sorry, I need no help with roon, I know very well how it works.
My point is, that there is a better way, how roon could work. I do not see the point, why the queue should be kept when choosing “Play next from here”. As well “Play now” could keep the queue but is deleting it. Somebody must have decided that this is the best solution. I have mentioned several examples where my suggested behavior would be better, I have not seen any argument so far, why it is better as is. So this thread was meant for roon staff or maybe other users, who could tell, why the existing behavior has been chosen. If there are no better arguments it could be discussed to change the existing behavior, this would be one line of program code or likely less.
To make things better, is to look how it works, and how it could work better.
cheers
Fair enough. In which case, I disagree with your original point …
Here’s the use case: I’m working at my desk, with a bunch of tracks queued up, when one of my kids walks in and says “dad, have you heard the track by …”. I say no, find the track, click Add next, and listen. My queue then reverts back to playing. That’s the behaviour I expect. There’s no way I’d want to delete a curated queue simply to play one track.
What I would support is an addition to the menu rather than a change to an existing item, i.e. an additional option along the line of ‘Add next (and replace queue)’. That would work.
I disagree. Roon does what you need adequately. Add next places the selected track or album next in the queue. If it destroys the queue, it won’t be next, it’ll be first! And that’s what Play does.
But you reject this because you don’t like the abrupt transition, or the general idea of a queue.
I don’t think it’s broken or needs changing, don’t support this feature suggestion.
Hi Joe. I can’t say why this existing behaviour was chosen but I can say that I also find the current usability as it stands just fine for my needs. I find that the current way to modify/add to/clear the queue works well. Whilst I feel you obvious pain, I cannot say that I would find this option a necessity in my view. Take care.
I think you mean there is a “different” way roon could work. I like the current functionality and use it all the time. You have an additional use case which is of course the whole point of a feature request. You will probably have better luck getting a vote or two if you presented it as a non-destructive additional use case rather than a destructive use case that relied on removing functionality others like.
Here’s the use case: I’m working at my desk, with a bunch of tracks queued up, when one of my kids walks in and says “dad, have you heard the track by …”. I say no, find the track, click Add next, and listen. My queue then reverts back to playing. That’s the behaviour I expect. There’s no way I’d want to delete a curated queue simply to play one track.
What I would support is an addition to the menu rather than a change to an existing item, i.e. an additional option along the line of ‘Add next (and replace queue)’. That would work.
Yep, that’s exactly what I wrote above, the abbility to insert a single track into existing queue, could be named “Insert next”. But as with “Add next from here” on track level and “Add next” on Album level I think it would be more usefull to e.g. rename that to “Play next from here” and “Play next” with deleting the queue (as Play alway does). I see posts from users, who find the existing behavior more usefull, whereas I still can’t guess why and how they use it, but sure then an addition would be the best solution. Just did suggest to replace the funcionality, to not make the menu too big, as another user did mention
)