I'm not really sure, but I've noticed that if you listen long enough it will play the same songs more than once (not in a row) until you quit and restart and then it will find some new ones to play more often than normal.
I'm not really sure, but I've noticed that if you listen long enough it will play the same songs more than once (not in a row) until you quit and restart and then it will find some new ones to play more often than normal.
Whatever it is, it's horrid. I realy hate the shuffle play, as it doesn't really seem to shuffle enough.
Agreed. Well sort of. I always have iTunes on shuffle, but I have more than 2 days worth of music and I tend to hear essentially the same songs fairly often, even when I just leave it open and paused (in other words it's not its working on the same play order), and lately it's taken to playing one song and then jumping to another song in the same album, not continuously, but so that I hear 2 or 3 songs from the same album in a row.
Well, now that we're all in agreement that it sucks, who's up for making a 'true shuffle' applescript that will take an existing playlist and make it a good mix?
lately it's taken to playing one song and then jumping to another song in the same album, not continuously, but so that I hear 2 or 3 songs from the same album in a row.
I've been thinking about this shuffle thing and I'm beginning to suspect that it's a psychology problem i.e. the statistician's (or iTunes programmer's) definition of random isn't the same as basic human intuition.
Your example sounds perfectly random to me (as long as I remember my first year statistics classes).
In fact if I was just slightly more bored I'd work out the chances of it *not* playing 2 or 3 songs in a row from the same album. I'd guess they are vanishingly small. Maybe a current stats student can do the math.
It's like getting heads every time when tossing a coin ten times, it's just as likely as any other sequence of heads and tails, just more memorable.
In fact if I was just slightly more bored I'd work out the chances of it *not* playing 2 or 3 songs in a row from the same album. I'd guess they are vanishingly small. Maybe a current stats student can do the math.
This is a lot like the "birthday problem", which usually surprises people: if you have a room with 30 people in it, more likely than not (about 71% odds) two people in the room share the same birthday.
One thing to remember about iTunes shuffle play: It's a bit like shuffling a deck of cards, and dealing from that deck without reshuffling until you reach the end of the deck. No song should be repeated until all songs in the list have been played once. You should only hear repeats if you've run through everything in your shuffled playlist once, or if you reshuffle.
I'm reasonably satisfied with shuffle play, although I must say I use shuffle play more often via my iPod than via iTunes, and I'm not sure if both implement shuffle play exactly the same way. I use a playlist I call "The Big Shuffle" specifically for shuffle play, which has nearly 600 songs in it right now.
By the way, your screen name will go down in history? as the best.
well there are 3 van's the have been terminated from my iTunes because of mr. shuffles adoration of them, into the mystic, wonderful remark, & the eternal kansas city.
i checked most played stat once and those three were double the times played of any other tune.
so just now i reinserted them hit shuffle (option-clicked the shuffle button 5 times like douglas adams suggests) and what's playing? "the eternal kansas city" by van the man
thanks for the compliment on the name, "someday the superkaratemonkeydeathcar will park in your driveway....."
one thing you can do is create a smart playlist and instruct it not to play anything that's been played a certain amount of times, or you can tell it not to play anything it's played in the last day, 2 days or whatever.
I've been thinking about this shuffle thing and I'm beginning to suspect that it's a psychology problem i.e. the statistician's (or iTunes programmer's) definition of random isn't the same as basic human intuition.
Your example sounds perfectly random to me (as long as I remember my first year statistics classes).
In fact if I was just slightly more bored I'd work out the chances of it *not* playing 2 or 3 songs in a row from the same album. I'd guess they are vanishingly small. Maybe a current stats student can do the math.
It's like getting heads every time when tossing a coin ten times, it's just as likely as any other sequence of heads and tails, just more memorable.
There are some long-standing disputes among CompSci, Math, and Statistic folks regarding the use of the phrase "Random Number Generator" in most computer algorithms.
Used to be the case (back in the days of the Apple II) that the random seed generator script always started with the same seed. "Pseudo-random number generation" was the battlecry from the purists who repeatably tested "randomizing" operations and reproduced the same inital data point. IIRC, one of the workarounds was to always discard the first result.
This problem was cited as a contributing cause of weak encryption in early systems, and was specifically noted in papers on PKE. Recent versions of PGP dispense with machine-generated "randomness" in the generation of keypairs and now tie the internal random seed algorithms to a function of timed intervals between user keystrokes of their passphrase for that truly random element, humans.
Comments
I'm also interested in how it works.
Cheers,
Dan
Originally posted by BuzzardsBay
I'm not really sure, but I've noticed that if you listen long enough it will play the same songs more than once (not in a row) until you quit and restart and then it will find some new ones to play more often than normal.
I'm also interested in how it works.
Cheers,
Dan
i think it really, really likes van morrison.
Originally posted by superkarate monkeydeathcar
i think it really, really likes van morrison.
Who doesn't?
By the way, your screen name will go down in history? as the best.
Originally posted by vitaflo
Whatever it is, it's horrid. I realy hate the shuffle play, as it doesn't really seem to shuffle enough.
Agreed. Well sort of. I always have iTunes on shuffle, but I have more than 2 days worth of music and I tend to hear essentially the same songs fairly often, even when I just leave it open and paused (in other words it's not its working on the same play order), and lately it's taken to playing one song and then jumping to another song in the same album, not continuously, but so that I hear 2 or 3 songs from the same album in a row.
http://www.malcolmadams.com/itunes/
More specifically the script called "Randomize" on this page:
http://www.malcolmadams.com/itunes/s...cripts06.shtml
Originally posted by SledgeHammer
lately it's taken to playing one song and then jumping to another song in the same album, not continuously, but so that I hear 2 or 3 songs from the same album in a row.
I've been thinking about this shuffle thing and I'm beginning to suspect that it's a psychology problem i.e. the statistician's (or iTunes programmer's) definition of random isn't the same as basic human intuition.
Your example sounds perfectly random to me (as long as I remember my first year statistics classes).
In fact if I was just slightly more bored I'd work out the chances of it *not* playing 2 or 3 songs in a row from the same album. I'd guess they are vanishingly small. Maybe a current stats student can do the math.
It's like getting heads every time when tossing a coin ten times, it's just as likely as any other sequence of heads and tails, just more memorable.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
In fact if I was just slightly more bored I'd work out the chances of it *not* playing 2 or 3 songs in a row from the same album. I'd guess they are vanishingly small. Maybe a current stats student can do the math.
This is a lot like the "birthday problem", which usually surprises people: if you have a room with 30 people in it, more likely than not (about 71% odds) two people in the room share the same birthday.
One thing to remember about iTunes shuffle play: It's a bit like shuffling a deck of cards, and dealing from that deck without reshuffling until you reach the end of the deck. No song should be repeated until all songs in the list have been played once. You should only hear repeats if you've run through everything in your shuffled playlist once, or if you reshuffle.
I'm reasonably satisfied with shuffle play, although I must say I use shuffle play more often via my iPod than via iTunes, and I'm not sure if both implement shuffle play exactly the same way. I use a playlist I call "The Big Shuffle" specifically for shuffle play, which has nearly 600 songs in it right now.
Originally posted by Dog Almighty
Who doesn't?
By the way, your screen name will go down in history? as the best.
well there are 3 van's the have been terminated from my iTunes because of mr. shuffles adoration of them, into the mystic, wonderful remark, & the eternal kansas city.
i checked most played stat once and those three were double the times played of any other tune.
so just now i reinserted them hit shuffle (option-clicked the shuffle button 5 times like douglas adams suggests) and what's playing? "the eternal kansas city" by van the man
thanks for the compliment on the name, "someday the superkaratemonkeydeathcar will park in your driveway....."
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
I've been thinking about this shuffle thing and I'm beginning to suspect that it's a psychology problem i.e. the statistician's (or iTunes programmer's) definition of random isn't the same as basic human intuition.
Your example sounds perfectly random to me (as long as I remember my first year statistics classes).
In fact if I was just slightly more bored I'd work out the chances of it *not* playing 2 or 3 songs in a row from the same album. I'd guess they are vanishingly small. Maybe a current stats student can do the math.
It's like getting heads every time when tossing a coin ten times, it's just as likely as any other sequence of heads and tails, just more memorable.
There are some long-standing disputes among CompSci, Math, and Statistic folks regarding the use of the phrase "Random Number Generator" in most computer algorithms.
Used to be the case (back in the days of the Apple II) that the random seed generator script always started with the same seed. "Pseudo-random number generation" was the battlecry from the purists who repeatably tested "randomizing" operations and reproduced the same inital data point. IIRC, one of the workarounds was to always discard the first result.
This problem was cited as a contributing cause of weak encryption in early systems, and was specifically noted in papers on PKE. Recent versions of PGP dispense with machine-generated "randomness" in the generation of keypairs and now tie the internal random seed algorithms to a function of timed intervals between user keystrokes of their passphrase for that truly random element, humans.
Google "random" and "pseudo" and "computer" for detailed explanations
Don't blame the iTunes coders for failings in deeper functions.
linking the visualizer to lava lamp randomness might be cool, though.
Use an app like Altunenator (Mac App Store - Altunenator - Apple) to shuffle based on last played date. Works great for me!