This smarts!
Eversolo T10: Eversolo also claims the T10 can scan and organise libraries of around 200,000 tracks in approximately two hours.
StandardModel
1 Like
Amazing how fast Eversolo is moving.
It is not that amazing. What is amazing is that Rose takes so long to do what has been de rigueur for years.
5 Likes
Is a RS131 on it’s way? This will prevent me from buying a T10.
Dear HiFi Rose users
We understand your concerns regarding the time it takes to scan external drives that contain a very large music library.
We are also aware of this area for improvement and are continuously working to optimize the scanning process so that large music collections can be indexed more quickly in future updates. Thank you for your patience and understanding.
Rosehan,
First, I want to complement the Rose team for the dramatic improvements in RoseOne and in the weekly updates. It’s a huge leap forward and much appreciated.
However, this just leaves us users wanting more, just like a spouse…never satisfied.
In this case, indexing and cataloging a database has been a problem for years. A whole year was taken to fix the database. It still is very slow compared to much less expensive competitors and fails to identify and categorize the tracks again as the competitors do already.
I know you’re working on it but you have said this for literally years.
Can you give us any idea as to when this much needed improvement can be expected?
StandardModel
Just to build on @StandardModel post and hopefully inject some action this time…
-
artists’ albums in music SSD database to be showed in alphabetical order as asked by @Bonte and myself
-
improve Rose One’s search function by song/track name in music SSD database as asked by @Querner
Please action these as long due requests from users, thanks.
1 Like
I wonder what would happen if HiFi Rose took the entire code base and dumped it into Cursor or Claude Code, told it what was deficient, and asked it to improve those areas of the code? My guess is it would probably refactor the whole thing as a first step. Might be worth doing.
2 Likes
Tony22,
That’s an excellent idea. They should run everything through Claude. I do and it works wonders. First time through even Claude would probably choke but it is the only way to go.
StandardModel
Dear HiFi Rose users
Thank you for your positive feedback regarding Rose One and our recent updates. It is a great source of motivation for our team.
As many users have pointed out, the scanning speed of large music libraries, database indexing, metadata categorization, and search functionality are among the key areas we are currently working to improve.
In particular, we will forward the following requests mentioned in this thread to our development team for review:
- Improved scanning performance for large music libraries
- Enhanced accuracy of music metadata recognition and categorization
- Improved track/song title search functionality
- Improved album sorting options for artists
We would appreciate it if users could provide detailed information about each issue that they believe needs improvement, including exactly what is not working as expected and what kind of improvement they would like to see.
Having more specific examples, reproduction steps, screenshots, videos, and detailed descriptions of the situation helps us better understand the issue and is extremely valuable in identifying, investigating, and ultimately improving the problem.
The more detailed the information we receive, the more effectively our development team can analyze and address the issue.
Thank you for your cooperation and continued feedback.
Hi @ROSEHAN plenty of examples, including a variety of screenshots, have already been provided for your kind attention on this forum.
Could you please address both:
-
artists’ albums in music SSD database in Rose One to be showed in alphabetical order as asked by @Bonte and myself - other users have pointed this out to you - here’s a post from me on this issue - New app: Rose One - #221 by alessandro
-
improve Rose One’s search function by song/track name in music SSD database as asked by @Querner - here’s his post - Indexing artists in Rose One - #6 by Querner - same for my large library - trying to search for a song, for example “Hey Jude” should yield not only The Beatles original recording but also the numerous covers recorded by other artists that I know I have saved on my SSD Music collection. When I use the search function, I get the same poor results shown by @Querner or - most of the time - no results whatsoever.
Please fix these, they are long (and long…) overdue. Thanks
1 Like
PLEASE implement a way to organize our library by artist album and not by artist, because now i have thousand of albums with only 1 track, just because it organize my collection by artists. We asked this since years, but you still don’t understand our needs. Thank you
1 Like
Dear HiFi Rose users
We take these improvement requests very seriously as well.
I have already compiled the feedback in detail and forwarded it to our software development team for review.
We understand the concerns and expectations that have been raised, and we will do our best to deliver the improvements users are requesting as quickly as possible.
Thank you for your continued feedback, patience, and support. It helps us prioritize and improve the HiFi ROSE experience for everyone.
I completely understand the frustration. Managing a music library clogged with thousands of single-track albums is a nightmare for those who love organization, and it’s frustrating to see such a basic feature ignored for years. However, I have to be very honest: I don’t think there’s any hope of this feature being implemented anytime soon. The platform’s development logic now seems geared exclusively toward algorithmic streaming and curated playlists, completely neglecting the needs of those who own and want to organize their own local collection or a traditionally structured library.
1 Like
We fully understand the requests from users regarding large music library management, album organization, and search functionality, and these concerns are not being ignored.
In fact, these topics are continuously being discussed with our development team, and we have recently compiled and forwarded detailed user feedback and specific use cases to help them better understand the issues being raised.
In particular, the following areas are currently under active review:
- Improving large music library scanning and indexing performance
- Enhancing metadata recognition and classification accuracy
- Improving search functionality for SSD and local music libraries
- Improving Artist Album-based organization and library management
That said, these features involve core database structures and library management systems, so they require careful evaluation and development before implementation.
User feedback plays an important role in shaping our development priorities, and we are committed to continuously improving the library management experience for our customers.
We appreciate your patience and encourage you to continue sharing specific examples and suggestions, as they help us better understand user needs and provide valuable input to our development team.
@ROSEHAN Thank you for your reply, but I’m not entirely satisfied. The device was designed and sold with a built-in SSD slot specifically to handle large local music libraries. This is its native function, not a secondary feature. Hearing about “careful evaluation and development” years after its market launch is unacceptable for customers who have invested in your hardware. Scanning performance, metadata accuracy, and search are not optional features, but the minimum requirement for using the product. As you rightly say, hope is the last thing to die, but users’ patience has its limits. I look forward to concrete and timely software updates, not further promises.
4 Likes
Thank you for your candid feedback. We completely understand your concerns and appreciate you sharing them with us.
We agree that library scanning, metadata management, and search functionality are important core features for users who manage large local music collections. Your comments have been shared with our software team, and we recognize the importance of continued improvements in these areas.
While we are unable to provide a specific timeline at this moment, please be assured that your feedback has been acknowledged and will be carefully considered as part of our ongoing development efforts.
Thank you for your patience, continued support, and valuable feedback.
Thanks for the reply, but I need to be very clear: it’s no longer acceptable to hear platitudes like “your feedback has been shared with the team” or “it will be carefully considered.”
The point isn’t whether these features are important: they always have been, from the day this device was designed, advertised, and sold with a built-in SSD slot for managing large local music libraries. We’re not talking about marginal improvements or advanced requests, but essential features that should have been reliable and mature at launch.
Fast and stable scanning, accurate metadata, and truly effective search aren’t extras: they’re the bare minimum to make the product compliant with its intended use.
After years, reading that you’re still in the “evaluation” phase, without a roadmap, deadlines, or concrete commitments, is frankly unacceptable. User patience cannot be treated as an unlimited resource, especially by those who have already invested money and trust in your hardware. At this point, no further generic reassurances are needed. We need concrete, measurable, and timely software updates, with clear indications of what you intend to fix and when. Until then, your responses seem like just a way to stall.
4 Likes
Rosehan,
I appreciate all of your responses. I think the thing that troubles most HiFi Rose product owners is this: HiFi Rose does the very hard tasks in an outstanding world class manner, yet it stumbles on the simplest of things year after year. We all agree that the hardware design and construction is world class. The software has had problems but with RoseOne it has leaped into the same league as the best of the others.
However, the very simplest of tasks, indexing internal music files, parsing them, searching, proper thumbnails, issues that were standardized decades ago are still unresolved year after year. Give your database program to Anthropic for a day and tomorrow you can distribute a cleaned up good version that does all these things efficiently.
Why is it that the internal database - the simplest of tasks is the worst performing year after year? It’s not new, it’s not hard, it just takes someone who knows what they’re doing. Whoever is in charge of the database functions needs to find a different position.
StandardModel
6 Likes
Nothing has been learned. Same day, same platitudes with no solutions.
1 Like