steve1977 67 Posted October 27, 2013 Share Posted October 27, 2013 Really like the quality of theaudiodb.com. It has a great API and would make a nice add-on. Would suggest the following sources of information: Primary: musicbrainz.org Secondary (for artist and album art only) * theaudiodb.com * last.fm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebr 14930 Posted October 27, 2013 Share Posted October 27, 2013 We can't use musicbrainz as a primary source because they limit access too much. We'll have a look at audiodb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sydlexius 243 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 What about the possibility of setting up a MB mirror and require donations to use it? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve1977 67 Posted October 30, 2013 Author Share Posted October 30, 2013 I really like this idea. This is how headphones solved. They had asked for a one-time donation to use their mirror. Actually, their mirror is still up and running. One way may be to query using their mirror or alternatively to set up a new one. I know the musicbrainz guys are very supportive and will provide guidance on how to set it up. Rather than via a donation, this could be handled with a donation. The "default" scraper would be last.fm. And for those willing to buy the plugin, the music scraper would be musicbrainz. Plus as additoinal scraper for both theaudiodb ;-) Sounds good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcw07 347 Posted October 30, 2013 Share Posted October 30, 2013 I'm pretty sure that will be against the terms of service for musicbrainz. So because of that even a donation based system is probably unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve1977 67 Posted October 30, 2013 Author Share Posted October 30, 2013 I'm pretty sure that will be against the terms of service for musicbrainz. So because of that even a donation based system is probably unlikely. I believe that you are wrong with your assumptions. Headphones was facing the same issues and the folks at musicbrainz were supportive and provided guidance how to set up the mirror. The concerns at musicbrainz is about bandwidth and a mirror helps this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcw07 347 Posted October 31, 2013 Share Posted October 31, 2013 I believe that you are wrong with your assumptions. Headphones was facing the same issues and the folks at musicbrainz were supportive and provided guidance how to set up the mirror. The concerns at musicbrainz is about bandwidth and a mirror helps this. Well if it isn't against the TOS and someone wants to build it then it might be a possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve1977 67 Posted November 1, 2013 Author Share Posted November 1, 2013 Here we go with the link how to set up a mirror. As you can see, this is promoted by muscbrainz, so not against their TOS at all. Actually, their developers more than welcome mirror to reduce traffic from their site. Unfortunately, I cannot code, but hope that some developers picks this up. I am sure that I wouldn't be the only willing to pay for a well-running music meta data scraper. https://musicbrainz.org/doc/MusicBrainz_Server/Setup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebr 14930 Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 That particular set of instructions is for running their server in a VM. Not something we would want to do. The biggest issue here is the same one that MusicBrainz themselves have - bandwidth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sydlexius 243 Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) That particular set of instructions is for running their server in a VM. Not something we would want to do. The biggest issue here is the same one that MusicBrainz themselves have - bandwidth. Regardless of the implementation, their server is licensed under GPLv2, and the data is CC0 (effectively, public domain). They provide clear instructions on how to setup replication, which at the very least seems like tacit approval for pulling that data directly from them. For reference, the Headphones maintainer provides these instructions for Debian-based distros. As you so correctly put it, it boils down to a cost vs. benefit analysis of hosting and providing that data. Right now they strike me as one of the best authoritative sources on so many aspects of artist and release data, that I'd hesitate to consider other sources in lieu of theirs. With that said, I don't think the onus is on the MB3 devs to implement such a thing; but I'd suggest prioritizing it's considerations vs. coding/testing efforts towards switching to what is most likely an inferior source of data. Edited November 1, 2013 by sydlexius 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve1977 67 Posted November 1, 2013 Author Share Posted November 1, 2013 agree. fully aware that there would be cost associated with setting up a mirror (required bandwidth). I would see the mirror being password protected and only accessible by those who pay. payment could be done over the plugin system. not sure whether a one-time payment for the plugin makes the maths work. the headphones guy asked for 10$ for lifetime access. maybe it needs to be more for mb3 given higher bandwidth requirements? in any case, I agree with the other posters that musicbrainz is THE authority in music meta data and the other sources provide disappointing results. just seeing the abba albums from the 70ies showing up in MB3 as 2001 releases ruins the whole idea of tagging and library. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 37115 Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 My requirements for making changes are that they have to benefit everyone, not just a few advanced users willing to pay $10 for some super duper feature. And I would like to try to find a way to have all the best data which means MBZ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve1977 67 Posted November 2, 2013 Author Share Posted November 2, 2013 Agree that the very best is to find a way to have everyone access to MBZ and fully aligned that MBZ provides the very best data. Just saying that there may be restricted access to MBZ and paying a fee may allow to get around this. If there are other (free) ways to acccess MBZ, that would of course be even better!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnchimpo 7 Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 My requirements for making changes are that they have to benefit everyone, not just a few advanced users willing to pay $10 for some super duper feature. And I would like to try to find a way to have all the best data which means MBZ. One possible solution would be to partner with Headphones. I'm sure many people use it (its a decent metadata manager) and MB could get permission to just share their mirror (put a headphones UN/PW form in the plugin settings). Just an idea, I have no connections over there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ginjaninja 537 Posted November 2, 2013 Share Posted November 2, 2013 another option would be if the devs would make the hostname in musicbrainz fetcher configurable. Users could host their own instance of the service, using the vm and instructions on musicbrainz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve1977 67 Posted November 2, 2013 Author Share Posted November 2, 2013 another option would be if the devs would make the hostname in musicbrainz fetcher configurable. Users could host their own instance of the service, using the vm and instructions on musicbrainz. If you see Luke's answer above, I am sure that this is the least option that the developers want to pursue ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamH68 3 Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 My requirements for making changes are that they have to benefit everyone, not just a few advanced users willing to pay $10 for some super duper feature. And I would like to try to find a way to have all the best data which means MBZ. Perhaps MB3 could prefer ID3 tags over LastFM or other sources, this would reduce bandwidth usage and allow individuals to get their metadata from their preferred sources - in my case I use Picard to populate tags from MusicBrainz. MB3 could then fall back to whatever data sources it has access to to populate empty fields. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zag 4 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 There is no reason to use any complicated extra MB mirror servers. TheAudioDB provides full name search lookups, as well as MusicBrainz IDs. Feel free to apply for an API key on our forums.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beardyname 195 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 I wonder how much bandwidth a thing like this would take per month, just out of curiosity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koleckai Silvestri 1150 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 I wonder how much bandwidth a thing like this would take per month, just out of curiosity Depends on the number of songs you add each month and the images you download. Couple megabytes per song in general though. It only pulls the information once and then stores it on your server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beardyname 195 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 Depends on the number of songs you add each month and the images you download. Couple megabytes per song in general though. It only pulls the information once and then stores it on your server. Sorry i should have been more specific, i was thinking of how much a MusicBrainz mirror would use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 37115 Posted April 29, 2014 Share Posted April 29, 2014 We have one We are using musicbrainz to lookup Id's, then audiodb for info and images. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zag 4 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 I wonder how much bandwidth a thing like this would take per month, just out of curiosity Currently Media Browser is the 5th most popular API user Hits 1,953,118 Visitors 9,380 Bandwidth 6,920,512 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zag 4 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 (edited) Sorry i should have been more specific, i was thinking of how much a MusicBrainz mirror would use. I also run an MusicBrainz mirror for XBMC and the bandwidth is negligible. The update procedure is a nightmare though and its very hard to keep up-to-date, I wouldn't personally bother with MB mirrors. Edited May 9, 2014 by zag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zag 4 Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Traditionally our user base has been video centric. But as we're diversifying more and more this number is bound to continue to grow. Yep thats only a few weeks statistics. I see you are growing up the leaderboard Nice work! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now