MM Cloud

Any ideas about how to improve MediaMonkey? Let us know!

Moderator: Gurus

Re: MM Cloud

Postby Lowlander » Thu Jun 12, 2014 7:36 pm

I'm not aware of any cloud plans for MediaMonkey.
Lowlander (MediaMonkey user since 2003)
Lowlander
 
Posts: 43388
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 5:53 pm
Location: MediaMonkey 5

Re: MM Cloud

Postby joltman » Sun Jun 22, 2014 5:33 pm

I know that this thread is old, however, I wanted to throw my 2 cents in (for what it's worth). MMW is a fantastic app for organizing your music for home use (and now, with MMA, you can sync that music to your Android device). It handles the newer, higher rez audio files wonderfully. I think this is important as I want to play _my_ music anywhere on any device in my home.

To solve the "cloud" issue, I'm actually using MMW with a program called Subsonic. Subsonic is a web player for your music. I have a port forward on our router to the Subsonic server running as a VM on our home server. I can create a playlist in MMW, and using a script, it will convert the path's in the M3U to something that Subsonic recognizes. We can then access Subsonic via our phones or a webpage and stream our music from home. Works well enough, but better integration would be welcomed.

MMW does have it's limitations. Specifically, when you have a household with more than one person that shares the music library with you. For example (and I've got a thread open about this right now), my wife and I both share the same music library on our local VM NAS. She has a DB on her laptop, and I have one on mine. I'm still going through the process of tagging and organizing the files. When I rename a file and place it in a proper directory structure, her MMW DB sees these files as "dead links". This means that I have to go back through her MMW and correct that. That's a pain. We're trying a shared DB now on the NAS, but that's _extremely_ slow on our brand new laptops. Something needs to be done about this.

I am _not_ advocating a cloud service that the MM devs host themselves. That's too much time, money and effort to waste. Not to mention, that it could bring on legal troubles to the team, and that would slow/halt development of new features. I believe that media should never be in the cloud. We should own our own media and do with it as we please. We can already do that legally with music my own. Video, not so much.

To solve both of these issues, I think there needs to be a shift in development. We need a true server/client split of the application. I know that MMW has a "install as a service" feature now. However, it apparently has some bugs. What we need is a separate server install. I envision the server can be installed on any full fledged OS that we have. Windows, Linux, even OS X (but that could come later :lol:). The server would be in charge of hosting the SQLite DB and maybe even have separate users. It would provide APIs for other packages to query/control/stream/transcode/sync from the server.

This server package would have the ability to install additional "features". For example, a web server similar to Subsonic (Heck, you could even buy out Subsonic and tweak it to work with MM). We could then log into the web application, and have it configured to open the ports it requires on our home router via uPnP. You could have it setup a free DynamicDNS service as well (or use one you already have) so you can access your server wherever you have an internet connection.

You would also have a client package you could install. This would be a native Windows/Linux/OS X app that would connect to the backend server. It'd look identical to MMW now. You could have the client access the server with a MM user/pass. This would enable multiple users to access the same DB and playlists (or even let you give a user perms to view/edit/delete a playlist). You wouldn't _have_ to separate out the roles on to different machines, either. If you were one person who wanted to access your own music on your machine, you'd simply install both roles to your machine. No need to configure the web portion, as you won't use it. You just need the server to manage the DB.

The server would also talk to the MMA client. Since the DB is run from the server, there wouldn't be a need to run the MMW client permanently. Anywhere there's wireless in your home, you could see the MMServer.

I know this is a pipe dream, but I think it'd solve a lot of the issues that people have brought up. I also think that many people that run MMW have a passion for their music. They probably already have a NAS or other solutions at home that would make this new server/client shift more feasible for them.

OK, feel free to flame me.
joltman
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:39 pm

Re: MM Cloud

Postby trixmoto » Tue Jun 24, 2014 3:34 pm

I wrote a script for MP3 Tunes Locker which I don't think exists anymore, but this worked quite simply by creating songs with the path pointing to the http(s):// location of the song in the cloud, and it worked fine. So MM already has the capability, just not the integration, but this can be achieved by scripting.
Download my scripts at trixmoto.net.
All the code for my website and scripts is safely backed up immediately and for free using Dropbox.
Send me BTC: 34VQPVsf9mCeR4nfhFvvBYZqQ7LkqNZ8Mn
Send me LTC: 3P1mzrfbyscdhbxRpXLgKz7tufGAU3SrEG
Send me DOGE: 9xPpYSqgF7P5yQiqvE1VqWb4UjxVCCLFJ6
Check out these great cryptocurrency faucets... BTC / LTC / DOGE
trixmoto
 
Posts: 10024
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 3:28 am
Location: Barton, UK

Re: MM Cloud

Postby Agrajag » Mon Jul 28, 2014 8:43 pm

Remember, as the OP, what I was mainly advocating was LOCALLY stored media (most of our collections are huge if we're MM fans) but a browser-based client.

The Windows client felt old when I posted that thread way back when. It hasn't gotten younger since. Now, at least, there are apps coming for other devices but now that means distracted development and multiple sets of distinct source code. As I said then, I love the product and supported it with my wallet. I simply want to really feel it's entirely current. In the years since the post, I've touched MM only a handful of times. Google Music and other related products are just so much more connected and approachable.

Consider Plex. It has a main server app on my PC and clients everywhere else that it feeds. Do I understand correctly that MM for Android can't be served by MM PC???
Agrajag
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:34 pm
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ

Re: MM Cloud

Postby Lowlander » Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:20 pm

MMW can act as DLNA server (as well as client) and can serve to any DLNA client on any platform. MMA on Android and MM8 on Windows 8 can act as DLNA clients to play (streaming) files from MMW as well as be synced to (to have files on device) by MMW.
Lowlander (MediaMonkey user since 2003)
Lowlander
 
Posts: 43388
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 5:53 pm
Location: MediaMonkey 5

Re: MM Cloud

Postby Agrajag » Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:09 am

Thanks. Is there a simple guide for how to set this up?

Sounds like a Plex setup so then the next question is, how is this different/better than something like Google Music?
Agrajag
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:34 pm
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ

Re: MM Cloud

Postby Lowlander » Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:43 am

Google Music is a cloud service (files are online), DLNA is a local streaming solution (can be hacked to play over internet).

DLNA is setup under Tools > Options > Media Sharing: http://www.mediamonkey.com/wiki/index.p ... ervers/4.0 (On MediaMonkey Android/Metro) clients use UPnP to browse and stream.
Lowlander (MediaMonkey user since 2003)
Lowlander
 
Posts: 43388
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 5:53 pm
Location: MediaMonkey 5

Re: MM Cloud

Postby Agrajag » Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:45 am

Thanks. Was surprised to find MMA seeing my Plex server. Interesting.
Agrajag
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 2:34 pm
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ

Re: MM Cloud

Postby Lowlander » Tue Jul 29, 2014 11:55 am

DLNA is a standard, thus any servers that adhere to it can be seen by any MediaMonkey program and any clients that adhere to it can see the MMW server.

My understanding is that Plex to Plex allows for more metadata (could be wrong) as DLNA has a more limited approach to tags. I'm hoping MediaMonkey to MediaMonkey will eventually take a customized approach with more metadata being passed by the server while still adhere to the DLNA standard for MediaMonkey to other clients.
Lowlander (MediaMonkey user since 2003)
Lowlander
 
Posts: 43388
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2003 5:53 pm
Location: MediaMonkey 5

Cloud track integration

Postby gfmucci@yahoo.com » Thu Jan 01, 2015 7:56 pm

I would like to see the ability to integrate owned and streamed cloud tracks (e.g. on Amazon Cloud) into the main Media Monkey file system.
gfmucci@yahoo.com
 

Re: MM Cloud

Postby deremder » Sat Feb 07, 2015 7:43 am

The IT buz word cloud names a lot of different solutions. Here was discussed about a, in opposite to DLNA, extended MM media server. I think, I would be better to open a new threat with the title "MediaMonkey as streaming client".
deremder
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:28 pm

Re: MM Cloud

Postby paulyphonica » Thu Feb 19, 2015 11:59 am

Media Monkey is both a client app and a UPnP Server. If you want to run your own server, you can do so, and you can open it up over the internet if you wish, so that when you go to work you can still access your home server as long as you know the address, and as long as UPnP isn't blocked by any firewalls. So your use case is supported, seems to me. The "cloud" request is a bit of a misdirect. Cloud implies a certain relocatability of your media files. If you host them in the cloud, you can probably figure out a way to expose them via UPnP as streaming media so that you could get to them anywhere, in theory. But then, you own the implications as far as licensing of the media, as you would need to make sure no one has access to these on the Internet, because otherwise this arguably amounts to large-scale pirating of media. Your media is yours, but you should keep it as yours. Now it should be noted that Apple has recently changed their model so that you can listen to your media anywhere, as long as it can sync with your media and determine that you are authorized to play it. You don't need to upload or store it on the cloud, because Apple already has a copy, and it might even be better than the one you have (or not.) It doesn't care. It just lets you listen. This is an additional service you have to pay for, but it's pretty nice. And they have the legal teams to ensure that all parties are protected from any media licensing issues. But asking MediaMonkey to do the same is kind of like saying that you love your Ford Focus, but you want to sometimes be able to use it to transport 20 friends to a football game, and other times to use it as a yacht. Go get yourself a bus or a yacht. Get yourself a cloud service and sync your local library to it. But they aren't the same thing. Media Monkey is a great app written by a small team with the intelligent user in mind who wants full control over their media files. We should never ask them to change this design. I will never, ever, want to give up my own control over my very extensive library in favor of jumping on the cloud bandwagon. It's mine and I intend to keep it that way.
paulyphonica
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:21 pm

Re: MM Cloud

Postby paulyphonica » Thu Feb 19, 2015 12:28 pm

joltman wrote:MMW does have it's limitations. Specifically, when you have a household with more than one person that shares the music library with you. For example (and I've got a thread open about this right now), my wife and I both share the same music library on our local VM NAS. She has a DB on her laptop, and I have one on mine. I'm still going through the process of tagging and organizing the files. When I rename a file and place it in a proper directory structure, her MMW DB sees these files as "dead links". This means that I have to go back through her MMW and correct that. That's a pain. We're trying a shared DB now on the NAS, but that's _extremely_ slow on our brand new laptops. Something needs to be done about this.


Hi Joltman,

I have the same scenario, and I am sure others do as well. I am currently working on a scripted solution to this. It involves the following:
  • For the NAS copy, use UPnP Media Server instead of connecting to the NAS itself; that way you avoid dead links. If you do let them connect back to NAS directly then configure all remote clients so that they do not sync the tags back to the files and run into conflicts. This way everyone can keep the ratings they want. Assign one admin the right of managing the main tags.
  • Create network File/Folder synchronization tasks, as desired, using XCOPY or other tools, to bring down the latest copy from NAS to local if desired. You can configure XCOPY to copy files in either direction based on a variety of different conditions.
  • If you don't have a local copy of the library and prefer to use NAS-only, then you can still rip locally and sync up to the main library, so the library becomes a collective/collaborative repository. I am currently writing a MM plugin to do this.
  • If you wish to create playlists locally, you can also submit those playlists back up to the main library. It will then reconcile all of the file names, copy any required files, and also export the playlist as an M3U so it can be played via other media servers (I use Logitech Squeezebox and Logitech Media Server running against my MediaMonkey library but SONOS or other home media solutions could be synched up the same way).
  • (Optional) Separate copies of library. One on the network and one locally on the laptop. That way my wife or son can pick and choose the songs and albums she wants, and tag them as she sees fit. She can also take her laptop on the road, offline, whatever, and have full access. She can down-convert the bitrate if she needs more space. But storage is cheap, so there's really no need. We have over 20 thousand MP3s at 320 bitrate in our library and the entire library fits on most hard drives without a problem, as most laptops come with hundreds of gigabytes or terrabytes as standard.
  • (Future) working on ID Tag merge/sync software which will help to migrate two sets of files, moving the tags from one copy to another while keeping the other tags and the audio itself untouched.
I will share this back to the community as soon as I have something that is ready for prime time. Right now it is in initial development and testing in my spare time. Though if anyone is interested in collaborating I'd be open to that as well.
paulyphonica
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:21 pm

Re: MM Cloud

Postby joltman » Thu Feb 19, 2015 3:41 pm

paulyphonica wrote:Hi Joltman,

I have the same scenario, and I am sure others do as well. I am currently working on a scripted solution to this. It involves the following:
  • For the NAS copy, use UPnP Media Server instead of connecting to the NAS itself; that way you avoid dead links. If you do let them connect back to NAS directly then configure all remote clients so that they do not sync the tags back to the files and run into conflicts. This way everyone can keep the ratings they want. Assign one admin the right of managing the main tags.
  • Create network File/Folder synchronization tasks, as desired, using XCOPY or other tools, to bring down the latest copy from NAS to local if desired. You can configure XCOPY to copy files in either direction based on a variety of different conditions.
  • If you don't have a local copy of the library and prefer to use NAS-only, then you can still rip locally and sync up to the main library, so the library becomes a collective/collaborative repository. I am currently writing a MM plugin to do this.
  • If you wish to create playlists locally, you can also submit those playlists back up to the main library. It will then reconcile all of the file names, copy any required files, and also export the playlist as an M3U so it can be played via other media servers (I use Logitech Squeezebox and Logitech Media Server running against my MediaMonkey library but SONOS or other home media solutions could be synched up the same way).
  • (Optional) Separate copies of library. One on the network and one locally on the laptop. That way my wife or son can pick and choose the songs and albums she wants, and tag them as she sees fit. She can also take her laptop on the road, offline, whatever, and have full access. She can down-convert the bitrate if she needs more space. But storage is cheap, so there's really no need. We have over 20 thousand MP3s at 320 bitrate in our library and the entire library fits on most hard drives without a problem, as most laptops come with hundreds of gigabytes or terrabytes as standard.
  • (Future) working on ID Tag merge/sync software which will help to migrate two sets of files, moving the tags from one copy to another while keeping the other tags and the audio itself untouched.
I will share this back to the community as soon as I have something that is ready for prime time. Right now it is in initial development and testing in my spare time. Though if anyone is interested in collaborating I'd be open to that as well.


Unfortunately, we have over 350GB of music. It's not feasible to copy it all locally on my laptop (or hers). That adds an enormous layer of complication. We also use Subsonic to stream our music to external devices (phones, other computers outside the house). The Subsonic server is Linux, and in order for playlists from MMW to sync to Subsonic, I have to use a special Playlist exporting script that can change the locations that the playlists refer to (as in MMW, we use CIFS \\10.0.0.x\ and in Linux, it's /var/music). It's a hassle, but it works. We really need the ability to run MMW as a service on a Windows (Or Linux!!!) device that is "always on". With the same functionality of Subsonic, MMW would be even better.
joltman
 
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2012 5:39 pm

Re: MM Cloud

Postby paulyphonica » Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:17 pm

joltman wrote:
paulyphonica wrote:Unfortunately, we have over 350GB of music. It's not feasible to copy it all locally on my laptop (or hers). That adds an enormous layer of complication.


Understood. Note that in the scenario I describe, it is completely optional to have a copy of the library, just that it is allowed if you choose to. You could also in theory have a local copy that is synchronized based on tags. For example, just like you might copy auto playlists to a portable device like iPod or Android, you could also synchronize a copy of the library to your laptop based on these same rules. Say anything in certain Genres, Artists and/or ratings. Or like I do, use a custom field to track the original owner(s) of the music, so that my wife can have her CD collection in her library and I can have mine, and we can both have titles that we both like. My point is that whether you do have a local copy or not, you can still play the NAS copy and there should be no conflicts, and you can still have a small local copy for burning CDs, buying online music titles etc, and then submit those manually or automatically back up to the main library/repository. So in essence, your own private music cloud in your own network.
paulyphonica
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 9:21 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Wishlist (mmw)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests