Skip to main content
Djoiner
Contributor I
July 8, 2013

Party Mode is a problem. We need ability to create multiple groups of rooms!

  • July 8, 2013
  • 105 replies
  • 10677 views
We spend a lot of time grouping and ungrouping rooms. The issue is stems from my wife's use of Party Mode. She likes to use Party Mode while she is cooking. I ungroup the outside speakers so as not to offend the neighbors. I ungroup the upstairs when the kids go to bed. I turn everything off and then create a new group to set the morning alarm. In the morning, I create a group in the kitchen and family room to read the paper. There has to be a better way! Why can't we just create groups of rooms and label them something easy to remember like "Cooking", "Kids in bed", "Alarm" or "Morning Coffee"?
    This topic has been closed for further comments. You can use the search bar to find a similar topic, or create a new one by clicking Create Topic at the top of the page.

    105 replies

    Show previous replies
    tobsch
    Lyricist I
    January 1, 2016
    +1 would save a lot of frustration.
    The Mekon
    The Mekon
    Lyricist III
    January 8, 2016
    +1, I fully expected to be able to create multiple groups which could optionally contain the same speakers as other groups, so I can easily select the set of speakers I want to use without the faff if grouping/ungrouping all the time. Why is this not available?!
    johncanter
    Enthusiast II
    January 8, 2016
    I've been waiting 8 years for this function so don't hold your breath people.
      jgatie
      jgatie
      January 8, 2016
      Once again, it is logically impossible to have the same speakers in multiple groups. It's easy to demonstrate:

      Given speakers 1 2 3
      Group A contains speakers 1 & 2
      Group B contains speakers 2 & 3

      If I play Led Zeppelin in Group A and Chopin in Group B, what is playing on speaker 2?
        The Mekon
        The Mekon
        Lyricist III
        January 8, 2016
        Well that's easy - either just play on the speaker the most recent group selected, or throw an error when you try to play a group when that speaker is already in a different group that is playing. It doesn't really matter - it's not a situation that most people would configure, and so long as whatever method is consistent, who cares?
        jgatie
        jgatie
        January 8, 2016
        Well that's easy - either just play on the speaker the most recent group selected, or throw an error when you try to play a group when that speaker is already in a different group that is playing. It doesn't really matter - it's not a situation that most people would configure, and so long as whatever method is consistent, who cares?

        As a software developer, I care. I support creating permanent groups. I do not support the illogical concept of a speaker belonging to more than one group. It's stupid.
          The Mekon
          The Mekon
          Lyricist III
          January 8, 2016
          I'm a software developer too as it happens, yet I think it's a great idea. It's like Gmail allowing you to label emails rather than putting them in a single folder - genius!
            jgatie
            jgatie
            January 8, 2016
            Far different concept. No need to "throw an error" when an e-mail has different labels. I see this functionality to be more transient, such as a "moods" setting that automatically groups/ungroups when a mood is selected, instead of permanent grouping that requires all sorts of ugly logic to implement. Agree to disagree.
            johncanter
            Enthusiast II
            January 8, 2016
            Well that's easy - either just play on the speaker the most recent group selected, or throw an error when you try to play a group when that speaker is already in a different group that is playing. It doesn't really matter - it's not a situation that most people would configure, and so long as whatever method is consistent, who cares?

            As a software developer, I care. I support creating permanent groups. I do not support the illogical concept of a speaker belonging to more than one group. It's stupid.

            Surely as a software developer you would know that if there is an 'illogical concept' then software can be programmed to deal with it.

            In your example while Led Zeppelin is blaring out in Group A and the wife wants to play Chopin in Group B, it is simply greyed out and cannot be done. Speaker 3 would still be available to play Chopin or Group A virtual zone could be ungrouped and Group B would become available. It is not a difficult concept really.
            jgatie
            jgatie
            January 8, 2016


            Surely as a software developer you would know that if there is an 'illogical concept' then software can be programmed to deal with it.

            In your example while Led Zeppelin is blaring out in Group A and the wife wants to play Chopin in Group B, it is simply greyed out and cannot be done. Speaker 3 would still be available to play Chopin or Group A virtual zone could be ungrouped and Group B would become available. It is not a difficult concept really.

            All that is unnecessarily complicated, especially since the original concept was for permanent groups. Why should you have to ungroup a permanent group in order to do what one wants? If that's the case, why have a permanent group in the first place? As I said above, if this functionality is to work, it should be implemented as transient "moods" setting that does a group/ungroup macro. Permanent groups make no sense when they contain multiple instances of the same speaker.
            Show more replies
            Terms & ConditionsAccessibility statement