Don't remove items from the Queue when they've played [done in 1.4]

[quote=“Krutsch, post:142, topic:6060”]
Add one or more albums to the queue, [/quote]
Select Album, Play, Add to Queue

start playback from any single track,

You can load the Queue from a given point with Album, Select Track, Play From Here, Play Now/PlayNext/Add to Queue.

Within the Queue a left click (short press in iOS) brings up a menu to Play From Here or Play Next.

skip to another track

Drag that track to the top of the Queue with grab bars on the right, fast forward (just like a CD player). Or left click to Play From Here or Play Next. The first deletes tracks above it. The second doesn’t.

maybe re-play the first track (because I like that one a lot)

Rewind back the Queue (just like a CD player) or select it in History and Play Next

skip to yet another track

Drag it to the top of this Queue or start a new Queue with Album/Select Track/Play from Here

rinse and repeat.

Select the tracks I liked in History, Play, Play Now/ Play Next/Add to Queue, Loop.

If I want to keep it or edit it more I make a Playlist.

What am I missing here ?


I really get that some people want Roon to work differently, and that the way Roon works now may not suit them.

What I struggle to see is how it upsets people so much. Surely you either:

  • like/love the way it works and buy/subscribe to it,
  • think it could be better, but there’s enough to enjoy meanwhile so you do as above
  • think its too frustrating for you to use or missing ‘must have’ features, and so you spend your money elsewhere.

Simply arguing the pros and cons of Roon’s decision just seems to use up valuable life and energy that could be spent having fun!

My guess is the frustration comes from the fact that people really do like Roon, and despite threats of leaving to use something else, when they go back to their old players they think ‘mmmm, actually this is a bit sh*t, I wish I had Roon so I’ll go and see if I can get them to make it the way I want it’. That’s a shame because if only one feature stops you loving Roon, then you’re very close to nirvana. But you’ve just got to come to terms with these things and the fact that we can’t all have what we want all of the time.

Let’s be honest we’ve probably all got a list of things we’d like to change about software we use, products we use, local services we use, etc. Best to just make your point, make your peace, then choose the best option for you at the time and keep an eye on everything else meanwhile.

I was a bit miffed that I couldn’t use Dirac with Roon and my new RoonReady device. My choices were; leave Roon and use something else, or stay put and find a way round it. I chose the latter. There were other specific Roon workflows I’ve done that with too - the fact is for me the few negatives (or should I say niggles) are far outweighed by all the positives. If that weren’t the case I’d have moved on to something else.

I think on this issue the voice has been heard, and Roon do listen. But that still doesnt mean we all get what we want when we want it. I still havent got Dirac and some people havent got a different queue to the one Roon designed initially. Other people are waiting for their features.

Perhaps in the future we’ll all have what we want. Meanwhile, why get so upset about it all? It’s January 2017. Enjoy life!! (and music) :slight_smile:


Good shout. It is each to his own but I wonder how many of Roon’s capabilities do people moan about on the other player forums e.g. iTunes, JRM, etc.
Roon does a ton of stuff like stream to my Meridian, squeeze, rPi etc that none of the others do.

Feels a bit like one issue becomes a deal-breaker regardless of the other things that a user can exploit and enjoy.

Time for a bit of Freddie

I want it all…
I want it all…
I want it all…
And I want it now

Followed by some air guitar

1 Like

I wonder whether a button on the queue screen that bring up say the last 15-20 entries in history and allows them to be reinserted would do the trick for those that despise the FIFO queue.

Honestly, this is what gets people upset about this issue - not that it doesn’t work “my way”, it’s that every time someone asks about a non-destructive queue, a moderator responds with a convoluted workflow that isn’t the same thing and then asks, what’s the big deal?

What a non-consuming playback queue means is: a list of tracks, in some order, and I can tap on any song (ONE TAP) and it just starts playing from that point forward; no re-ordering, no rewinding, no disappearing. Simple.

Why not just say: we aren’t implementing a non-consuming playback queue, it doesn’t fit our model, but thanks for your feedback.


I think that has pretty much been said by the Roon team already? Not in a “we’re not doing it way”, but in a “it’s not going to be imminent and anyway not until they had resources to work out a system that they were happy was a great user experience for all concerned, and fit ion with their model”.

I guess mod’s can’t write the code - seems they’re just trying to understand the situation and offer up the best solutions they can based on the information in the meantime.

[I think the post that came to mind was mike’s here: Charging $100 per year ... stop acting like this software is free]

1 Like

Except Roon breaks even this trivial use case, e.g. put 10 tracks in a queue, start at track 1. Decide to skip to track 8? Bye-bye tracks 2-7!


But, that is exactly what @Sloop_John_B said. Queue is what you Queue up and History is what has been played. If you skip tracks without every playing them why would they be in History, you did not play them.

In fact, you only skip tracks if you use “Play from Here”, if you instead use “Play This Now”, it plays that song and not change anything else about the queue, except the order. So in your example, if you started track 1 and decided to play track 8, the “Play This Now” function would have kept the entire queue intact.

And then it disappears from the queue into history, destroying the queue order! It’s wilfully obtuse behaviour.

So just to get this straight - you want a queue that you did not play to be kept just in case you don’t want to play it again some time?

1 Like

Life’s too short…


for multiquote?

1 Like

In all seriousness, mute threads you aren’t interested in. :+1:

I’m interested in the thread, I don’t want any changes that will keep a static queue.

I just lose interest in replying when Roon are accused of wilfully obtuse behaviour, that’s a sign for me to stop debating as it is no longer a debate.


Hmm, if we’re in hair splitting mode, I was referring to the queue behaviour design, not Roon as an entity.

definition: of wilfully and obtuse.

with a stubborn and determined intention to do as one wants, regardless of the consequences
annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand

as play queues are not sentient beings in their own right, it can only be the makers or coders of these queues that can be wilfully obtuse.

but this is childish and I should stop.


HTH your reading comprehension.

Can the design element of one part of the software be described as I put it: (imo) yes, given the set of compromises it imposes on its users, may of whom have asked what they consider to be Ux best practice to be followed.

Is Roon as an entity or its employees willfully obtuse: no, of course not. Quite the opposite.

And on that note, topic muted…

We’re closing this thread down as it has served its purpose and degenerated. The suggestions in it have been heard but may not be adopted.

At least some of the concerns expressed appear to reduce to dislike of Pawmasher and a preference for one click play rather than any missing functionality.

A new thread can be opened after 1.3 is released. Use cases demonstrating a lack of existing functionality are likely to get more traction than a general preference that Roon do things the same way as other software.