Intelligent Playlists - GET THIS FUNCTION UPGRADED PLEASE

Hi Guys,

Ran across some rather surprising limitations on this:

(btw have spent weeks tagging my entire collection)

1. Wanted to make a combined playlist of 7 artists that are also rated above a certain star rating - CANT DO IT, very basic function, very surprised

2. Cant build an intelligent playlist based on other playlists, pretty obvious function

3. limited to 128 intelligent playlists (even though I paid for the DJ version) - absolutely no reason for this, if its 'technical' as I see you have mentioned before then this talks to bad software planning, there is never any reason that such a basic function cant be employed

There was a post "Product & Feature Suggestions" about this (6 September 16) - you ignored it, given it no response

There was a post rekordbox May 20 2015 on the 128 playlist limitation, its been 2 years.

You are obviously under serious budget constraints and being owned by a private equity company (KKR) is the probable cause, I've worked with them before, I know their style.

The system is full of rather surprising 'issues' as you well know, and I know you are just repping the company Pulse because that is your job....but for example having to reduce the resolution of some of my AIFF files so that Rekordbox can cope with them is shocking.

Anyways, please get your intelligent playlists out of the stone age, there are very easy basic changes that don't cost too much as above.

Please give us all an update on them, thanks!

Lynchun May 03, 2017 02:54 Answered

Post is closed for comments.

Date Votes

35 comments

+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Hi I would also love intelligent Playlists to be sorted it really is taking along time and making many of us miserable. How long can it actually take to allow for a DUPLICATE playlist function, alleviating us of the absolute ball-ache of having to rebuild a complex playlist that must be done 20 x (say for each Key).

Why does the intelligent playlist function max out at 17 operators? Why can't it be unlimited like excel and iTunes? These are computers after all surely they can handle basic equation?

kolovos October 21, 2018 14:08 0 votes

Trying to find a solution for the "no more than 128 playlist-problem" Google transferred me to this forum. I see solving this problem is on Pioneer's list. I am very looking forward to this being fixed also!

Turntable Tony December 27, 2018 23:20 0 votes

-1

Still wating for new features...
It's very sad, there is so much potential...

At least the limit of 128 Playlists would be a good start.

StevePe February 14, 2019 09:02 -1 votes

Hi all,

Four (4!!) years have passed since first posts on the 128 limit issue and still no solution for this? Is it that complicated to implement? Software internal memory/buffer management problems or something similar?

Other things that have been referred a long time ago is the inclusion of more (complex?!) AND/OR possibilities when creating the queries that build each playlist, as well as more options/features like case sensitive, excluding words, separated words by semicolons or commas on a single query, etc. No solution for these as well?

The last (but not least) feature that would be crucial to include would be to allow sorting the tracks by multiple columns (not just one, as it is today). Sorting tracks by Artist AND by track name, for example, is a very common thing that should be allowed to do.

One last thing: after creating a folder structure and thus, the playlists, do you guys have any response time problems (like the computer seems to hang up) when right-clicking on a single folder inside that tree structure (no matter which folder)? I do have a collection of more than 30,000 tracks which seems to be quite heavy for Rekordbox to handle. I think i have waited for more than 5 minutes just for the window to show up, after i right-clicked a folder inside that tree... The software should be capable of handle this kinda problems smoothly.

I have a powerful computer (2 SSD's in RAID0; 16GB RAM; I7 with 3,2Ghz) thus i'm quite sure this ain't a hardware problem.

Cheers.

alllright July 26, 2019 15:22 0 votes

Two word answer: Database limitations.

They're well aware of the limitations and are working to improve it in future versions. Thanks for your patience.

Pulse July 26, 2019 17:10 0 votes