• The forum software that supports hummy.tv has been upgraded to XenForo 2.3!

    Please bear with us as we continue to tweak things, and feel free to post any questions, issues or suggestions in the upgrade thread.

Music Files being served in random order

F

fourvees

New Member
Anyone using their HDR FOX T2 as Music server ?

I've got a Physical music client (Pioneer HM81) and I have a laptop with the client XBMC
and if I look down the music path the files appear but they are in some kind of random order !!

However, if I use the XBMC video client to go to the FOX T2 Server it shows the files in the correct order
and if I view the files on the TV they are in the correct order.

Would love to receive the files on my client in the correct order , always nice to hear an album in the order it was recorded , especially themed albums !!

Anyone got any idea why this is happening or how to fix it ?
Done the usual things like default reset and written to Humax support .

So close yet so far as I say files available to see but not in the correct order
 
I suspect that the sequence is dictated by the client, not the server. So I suggest you look around to see if there are any sequence options in the Pioneer client.
In general DLNA clients seem to ask whether you want to view the media by Artist, Album, Genre, etc. then present in alphabetical order. I think this is client functionality not server.
DLNA uses the metadata from the music files to drive this.
DLNA is like that.

EDIT: if I am wrong in any of this I'm pretty sure another DLNA expert will be along shortly to correct and advise further
 
Last edited:
fourvees said:
However, if I use the XBMC video client to go to the FOX T2 Server it shows the files in the correct order and if I view the files on the TV they are in the correct order.
Click to expand...
fourvees said:
Done the usual things like default reset and written to Humax support.
Click to expand...
Have you stated this the wrong way around? Maybe it's too early for me, but the way I read the OP it's the Pioneer that gets it wrong, so why criticise the Humax?

Presuming the OP has indeed stated this the wrong way around (otherwise it would not be an issue for the HDR-FOX section of the forum), if the same client shows media ordered in a structured way from the Pioneer but not from the Humax, the evidence suggests that it is indeed the server which makes the difference.

The Humax DLNA server provides information from an index when a client requests a media list. The items in any particular list may include sub-folders. Although this looks like the normal file directory, it is actually another database representation of it. I think this is part of the DLNA standard and all servers work this way. When you have a new recording or import new media to the Humax, the new content does not appear in the DLNA index until the indexer has walked the physical data and located the new item. (In the case of a recording, this is immediately the recording has finished or at next boot if the recording was completed in standby, but in the case of imported media it may take some time.)

When the Humax responds to a client request for DLNA content, it serves up the content of its database - I believe in the order that the items are found in the database. This means that whichever items were indexed first appear at the top of the list.

Using the HD-FOX as a DLNA client, there is no option for the order recordings are displayed. What you get (in any particular folder) is a chronological list (oldest at the top). This correlates with the hypothesis above - does this correlate with what XBMC shows you?

Once you know this, you can exploit it by ensuring the items you want at the top of the list are added to the Humax first, and ensure the DLNA indexer finds each one before adding the next.
 
Last edited:
Actually I think it's a server-side issue.


The same album on my Synology NAS that's in the correct order, is in the wrong order in mediatomb, on the Humax. I'm using the same XBMC client. This seems to correlate with the view of the original poster.

I have loads of music served off my NAS that didn't need uploading in a specific order. Frankly that wouldn't have been acceptable.

This is the first time I've used mediatomb. I've only done so out of curiousity.

EDIT: It serves it up correctly if you use the album tag from XBMC, but not if you use one of the others such as Artist, Genres, Year etc.
 
Last edited:
So he is. Sorry for taking this off-piste I should have looked closer. I agree with what he sees on the native Humax dlna server though.Track 1,7,6, 10,11,9,2,3,5,8,4. I think it's probably server-side determined.
 
Black Hole said:
Bear in mind the OP is talking about the native DLNA server on the HDR-FOX, not MediaTomb.
Click to expand...
Hi All,

It's good to see a debate happening on this for clarity I will add the following
1) I am trying to use the native FOX T2 HDR service
2) I have tried XBMC and get the same file order as I'm seeing on my Pioneer
3) I tried going down the Video file route under XBMC and went into the Music Folder and guess what
XBMC then saw the files in the correct order !!
Each of the music tracks start with a number so that I can immediately see the order of the files.

So, using XBMC video client and using XBMC Music client gives different results i.e the video client see's
the files in the correct order but the music client does not !
I've checked the Pioneer Music client for options and the XBMC music client for options but they do not have a sort order
so the question is why dies the XBMC music client and the FOX T2 see the files in the correct order but the Music clients
display the results in a different order ?

Don't get me wrong I'm a BIG fan of the Humax boxes I've had them for years starting with the 8000T, I'm currently running two FOX T2 HDR and a FOXSAT .
I've written to Humax support who are also looking into this for me as I really would like to be able to use the FOX T2 HDR as Music server .
Out of interest I've tried serving the files through a NAS, Mediatomb and directly attached USB device to the Pioneer and the files appear in the correct order
i.e number order .

So why is the Music Server on the Humax serving up the files in a way that music clients cannot order ?
 
Hi Blackhole

Yes I know I'm hoping that Humax can resolve this issue is a bit of a Tall Order
so was hoping that someone here might have an answer to the issue.

If you are confused please let me know what your confused about and I will give you the facts
that might help you

Cheers
 
Try reading post 7 out loud, and see it it makes sense to you. It doesn't to me. Don't chastise yourself too much - proof-reading one's own work is very tricky (you tend to read what you think you wrote, not what's actually written).
 
I'll attempt to add some clarity. It's possible that I've set up the DLNA servers incorrectly.

The Humax DLNA server appears to serve up audio files in an incorrect order,

Mediatomb using the customised firmware offers;
Albums
Diamond Dogs
Unknown
All-Full name
All Audio
Artist
Genres
Year

Of these only Albums offers up my test album in the correct track 1 to 11 in order.

By contrast Humax DLNA only offers;
Dave Brubeck - It's A Raggy Waltz
David Bowie - Diamond Dogs (Track 1,7,6, 10,11,9,2,3,5,8,4)

This is using the same XBMC client.

Conclusions
1. Those eager Humax boffins have something to fix.
2. It might be worth installing customised firmware and using Mediatomb for audio, pending this happening.
 
Thing is this: you've been talking about XBMC and a Pioneer as clients, and a "FOX T2" as a client (in an association clause), but also the Pioneer as a server... so I don't get what's what. Apart from anything else, "FOX T2" does not distinguish between an HD-FOX T2 and an HDR-FOX T2, so although I assume you are only talking about an HDR-FOX, it could be that you have an HD-FOX to use as a DLNA client. Please have a glance at the Glossary (click).

"I have tried XBMC and get the same file order as I'm seeing on my Pioneer"

What does this mean? Is this when XBMC and the Pioneer are clients to the HDR-FOX? Is this when XBMC is client to the Pioneer server and the HDR-FOX server?

Regardless, I do not see any hope at all that you will be able to get a sensible order out of the HDR-FOX DLNA server, other than what I described before (ie first come, first served). Any sorted order you may be getting at the client end is most likely imposed by the way the client chooses to present the results of a content request from the server. This is a sensible approach for the DLNA specification, as it leaves the server responsible for providing the requested information, and the client responsible for how that information is presented to the user. If you don't like your client, you can try another one.
 
I've been doing some sampling, around this. As I do all my DLNA from my Synology NAS I haven't really exercised my HDR T2 in this area

For clients I have an LG Blu-Ray player, and a Pure radio, plus a couple of windows 7 apps. (Sadly I couldn't get vlc to play ball. There appear to be upnp issues in the current release.). I have a couple of XBMC clients, which gave the same results.



Here's my results: 1 indicates success in playing 40 year old tracks in their correct order.

Clients
XBMC ,Windows media Player,LG,Foobar 2000,Pure


..............X W L F Pure
Servers
Synology 1 1 1 1 0

Mediatomb 1 1* 1 1 0

Humax 0 1 0 0 0



My Pure radio, came out dismally. I hadn't noticed before. It's rare for me to listen to complete albums in the kitchen. In truth I bought it for DAB and Internet radio, but am a tad disappointed. You can disregard the rightmost column.


Humax DLNA only seems to play ball with Windows Media Player, around here. Conclusion Use Windows Media Player :dance::whistling:

With respect to the Humax DLN, The order of tracks was common against the other clients, so at least failure was consistent.

Track order:
1,7,6,10,11,9,2,3,5,8,4 humax/xbmc
1,7,6,10,11,9,2,3,5,8,4 humax/LG
1,7,6,10,11,9,2,3,5,8,4 humax/Foobar 2000

Alternative conclusion Humax DLNA presenting it consistently wrong to clients, except WMP. Use customised firmware and Mediatomb, but probably not Windows Media Player - see below.



*In order, but 9 entries for each track, so WMP wanted to play track-1 9 times, and track-2 9 times etc.


Well I had fun with it, anyway.
 
Last edited:
More fun.
I've run Media Monkey against the same servers, and got the same results as XBMC, LG, Foobar 2k.

This client helpfully displays values for Path filename, and track number.
2501h08.jpg



Unsuprisingly the track number is missing. The client plays them in the order of file in the path.

For completeness here's my NAS.

288z9m1.jpg


File numbers unimportant, due to the track number field.

Here's Mediaportal

243f9lw.jpg




Obviously Humax DNLA is passing track number to WMP successfully, but many/most other clients fail.

I'm not a Perl/Python man. (though tempted here) I suspect a script would share some further light. There's probably a module on cpan.

hth
 
Hi Guys,

Looks like we are all getting the same results using the Fox T2 as a Music server
my clients : Pioneer XC-HMC81 & XBMC both see the files in the same wrong order and not even the order in which the files were placed on the FOX T2 Server !!

I've taken to using Media TOMB on my Foxsat Box and that works fine with any client .

Shame cos I mainly use the FOX T2 for my video media, I really find it amazing how this can be sold as a Music Media server
when it clearly does not work with most Music clients !!

If anyone finds a solution perhaps you can also tell the Humax support team as they have failed to find a solution so far

Thanks Again everyone who tried to help on this.
 
Why not install the customised firmware and use Mediatomb on the Fox HDR T2 - even if just for audio?
You can still stream video, from the Humax service, if that's your preference. They appear to coexist. Should Humax ever get round to fixing it, you can revert to one single service, if you so desire.

The benefits of CFW also go much further than just reliable audio DLNA. The extra functions and packages are really attractive. It's also apparent that the probability of getting timely fixes is a great deal higher from the Hummy community, than from Humax. Best of luck with your support call.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top