In case you didn't catch it: Picard != Picard QT

Given the number of clueless/negative comments on the TRM announcement, I feel it necessary to clue people in to the fact that Picard QT’s interface has been revamped. The workflow has been greatly improved, the user interface is more stable and it does an amazing amount of work for you before you need to use acoustic fingerprinting.

If you feel the need to trash months of hard work that Lukas has done, please at least download it and try it before you make an idiot of yourself.

12 thoughts on “In case you didn't catch it: Picard != Picard QT”

  1. I’ve been using PicardQT since the early alpha’s, and it’s simply great. So stop whining and start using!

    P.S. In Firefox, I keep getting the spam protection message instead of posting the message, despite having written my last comment on a blog post ages ago.

  2. I love Picard QT…just make it more friendly towards single tracks. And less likely to freeze when adding large numbers of songs, since I can’t actually get through an entire session without breaking it up into segments.

  3. First, PicardQT seriously rocks. A MASSIVE improvement over Picard 0.7.2 in about every way possible.

    Phyltre – I’ve found it’s best to think of it like you would clean out a file cabinet. You wouldn’t grab every single file folder and try to clean it all at once. You would get a few folders, clean them, then move on to the next few. Same idea here – grab a few hundred files, clean them up, fix any borked data in the database that you notice while doing so, submit puids, and move on to the new few hundred files. If you try to do most, or all, all at once, I don’t think any UI is going to really help – just too much data to sort all at once. 🙂

  4. This thing totally rocks. I just got a mac and was kind of freaking out about not having Picard. Problem solved. Works better and easier than the one I used in Windows. Very nice.

  5. PicardQT is truly awesome and even works like a charm on Mac OS-X 10.4 with ruaok’s prepackaged Beta DMG.

    PicardQT has not been designed to handle individual (random) songs – it is very clearly meant to tags within the context of albums. This is how the MusicBrainz database is laid out as well. While it would be nice to have an application that handles individual (random) files well, I don’t think MusicBrainz is necessarily the service to provide this. Everything we enter into the database is in the form of “releases” not “songs”.

    One day, I would like to see our schema change to accomadate artist “song lists” so that some users can tag their random tracks with artist and title info and to provide the “advanced” users with comprehensive lists of artists’ works.

  6. Downloaded it, tried it, still hate it.. Its NOTHING like classic tagger. Please dont switch off TRM until someone has written something that looks and feels exactly like Classic Tagger but using the PUID’s instead of TRMs. I use musicbrainz to sort out huge folders of random mp3’s. Can be thousands of files at a time, often all by diffrent artists, off diffrent albums. Classic tagger is perfect for this, but Picard seems to be purely based around albums, not individual files. If PicardQT can act exactly like classic in this regard, perhaps someone needs to write a guide explaining how to do it because I cant seem to get it to act the same.

  7. I like the classic tagger better. It has a much better interface when dealing with a large number of files from different albums. I can see how closely each file resembles what it should be, and while I can do that with picard, it isn’t the same. With picard, I have to click on each album, even if I only have 1 or 2 songs in that album, and going through hundreds of album clickage is tough.

    What I am getting at, is I wish there was a way to sort by artist, song name, or file name instead of by album. Having to expand each album is a pain in the butt.

  8. I remain unconvinced of Piccard QT’s workflow and usability. Classic Tagger was easy from the start. There is no logical UI flow in PQT and it attempts to abstract items to a level that is too high when just dealing with individual files (or albums that have multiple versions of the same file).

    It is rather obvious that maintaining the TRM server is just too much to deal with, especially when you are trying to migrate to your next generation PUID acoustic fingerprint database.

    Unfortunately, the only option for people who cannot live without the Classic Tagger is for some kind soul to add PUID capability to Classic Tagger (or write a new Classic Tagger-style program that uses PUIDs)

    PS: Calling people clueless and idiots is going to win you no friends.

  9. Will it still be possible to look up and submit CD IDs with the old tagger? That’s all I use it for.

  10. Hi Neil!

    Yes, the CD lookup functions will continue to work just fine. Even manual tagging will still work, but the TRM server will no longer do acoustic fingerprinting.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.