Shuffle 5K track limit

Core Machine (Operating system/System info/Roon build number)


Network Details (Including networking gear model/manufacturer and if on WiFi/Ethernet)


Audio Devices (Specify what device you’re using and its connection type - USB/HDMI/etc.)


Description Of Issue

My apologies if I missed this but is the Shuffle problem fixed? When I shuffle my library or playlist only 5K tracks are selected for shuffle.

Thank you

My build version is 1.8 (build 783)

5K is the limit…it not always the same 5K now…

What do you mean…like slightly over 5k but for all practical purposes 5K?

I hsve seen on other threads that Roon Support said this would be fixed (meaning in can shuffle your entire playlists, library) in the next release. By next release to they mean 2.0 or a point release/build. Can someone from roon comment on a ETA?

You can correctly shuffle a large library/playlist (more than 5k tracks) now - this is fixed. Before, only the first 5k tracks of the library/playlist got shuffled - every time.

The 5k track limit of the queue is still there. It has nothing to do with shuffle and there was never a promise to leverage that limit AFAIK.

Thank you, BlackJack.

I guess everything stops when the queue is empty but who is likely to be listening that long?

Still, I would like to shuffle everything and not have a queue size limitation - just because.

I believe iTunes has been shuffling for 1,000,000 years now without this limitation.

Can someone from ROON support comment

thank you

We shuffle everything but only add 5000 to the queue.

Is there any practical reason why you’d want more? If you had 20000 tracks, you’ll get a random 5000. Same as if you added all 20000 shuffled and listened to the first 5000 or fewer. There are technical reasons we limit this, but it really shouldn’t matter. If you have any reasons (beyond “just because”), I’m willing to hear them.

1 Like

The problem is that, besides 5k limit, the new shuffle UI made impossible to shuffle complex tags, but it used to work before. You can read the details in this thread:

1 Like

I was hoping random works as follows:

Randomize list/library (this becomes the “master list.”)
Loop until “master list” EOF
If not, the first pass
Randomize the “master list.”
Take the top of the stack track from the “master list” and add it to the queue
Remove the track from the “master list.”
Play the single track the queue
Repeat until “master list” is EOF
End loop

For me seeing the randomized queue of 5K (or whatever the number is) the thrill of randomize (or “shuffle”) is gone. The queue becomes a static playlist.

1 Like

It was static before as well, you just never saw any of the list. And you had weirdo shuffle mode, along with a shuffle toggle as well

I guess to put it simply I want a random song delivered in real time from a source until the source is exhausted.

1 Like

Is there any practical difference in what it does now that I’m missing? You are feeling something that I can’t, so clearly I am missing something. Help me understand what that is so I can evaluate if it’s worth rethinking this.

There was a real reason we did this change. The “shuffle mode” was a very confusing concept, often complained about. This made it work far more understandably.

I’m sorry for the intrusion, maybe it was static as well under the hood but anyway it had the ability to shuffle the whole tag with all non-library tracks in playlists in this tag. And now it can’t.

1 Like

That tag issue is a bug, and being addressed in that other topic you linked. This topic is about the 5k limit and has nothing to do with that bug.

The practical difference is that I want a random track delivered to the queue from a source and then removed from the source. Once the track is played another random song is delivered real-time to the queue until the source is empty of tracks. I don’t want a randomized static list. I truly want to be surprised with each delivered track. Does that make sense?

1 Like

If we didn’t show you the queue, you’d be happy? You’d probably never make it through 5000 tracks, so is there any difference other than the fact that we show it to you?

The old behavior was static as well.

Both old and new implementations are the same random, and both were predetermined.

Even toggling shuffle on the queue predetermines the order. It’s still equally random, but you can choose to see what’s coming up if you want. If you don’t want to see it, don’t look :slight_smile:

I am not doing a good job of explaining myself, so my apologies. I want roon to re-randomize between each delivered track and deliver a single track to the queue. I should only see one track in the queue. Before the next track is delivered to the queue, roon would randomize the source again to server up another track. In this way, I never know what’s coming next. I guess it’s like Bingo. The container is spinning, a number is removed from the container and delivered. The container spins again and another number is delivered until the container is empty - or in the roon world until I stop listening.

1 Like

Sorry again, but I got the answer that you don’t consider it as a bug.

And what about 5k in the queue, I’ve already written before about the misadvantages of this approach:

  1. much slower and less responsive queue (in comparison with track-by-track shuffle);
  2. and if I click shuffle twice then I loose all my previous queue (only 3000 tracks from first shuffle left).
1 Like

Yah but look at the bottom of the thread, it looks like a different report has nailed the issue, which is related to the add.

Shouldn’t that blow away all of the previous shuffle? If it keeps it around, that’s probably a bug.

It’s heavier on the display, but the point of the new method is to show the list.