5 ms·
Many music players have done this for a long time. In fact I believe that's part of the reason why they refer to that function as "shuffle" rather than "random"
by laumars 9y ago
Many music players have done this for a long time. In fact I believe that's part of the reason why they refer to that function as "shuffle" rather than "random"
- eterm 9y agoShuffle is too far the other way though, you don't get any duplicates until you've been through the whole playlist. 'Random' was better, especially when there were players that would play "random album" which was great. You're right that shuffle has been the standard for a long time, the last actual "random" for singles I remember was napster back when it was popular.
- SAI_Peregrinus 9y agoI usually use Foobar2000 in "shuffle albums" mode. It's a good compromise IMO.
- pkulak 9y agoBut even a pure shuffle isn't enough, since you're likely to get the same artist many times in a row, which bothers people.
- laumars 9y agoThat depends entirely on the implementation. There's no one rule for how developers should implement shuffle. When I was writing my in car entertainment system (it's not as good as it sounds!) the first metric that was shuffled was the artist, followed by weightings for albums.
- worldsayshi 9y agoI would expect a "dumb shuffle" to randomise the order of playing songs in the list but play each song once.