Okay I'm not a big fan of the software, but for tag management and the
"Show Duplicates" option, iTunes 4.8 is great, and free.
But I've stuck with the SQLite Db for track tag info and disabled the
iTunes plugin as it was hammering my machine with constant unneeded
refreshes.
--
oreillymj
Jim wrote:
>
> Time to choose how important lossless is to you, if it's quite
> acceptable to lose entire tracks of a CD as "the other one sounds the
> same", or "ReplayGain will sort out the volume difference" then by all
> means do it, but then ask yourself why you chose lossless and if you
> a
Ben Wrote:
> I almost hate jumping into this thread, but I guess it depends on your
> reason for using FLAC (or any lossless codec). If it's to archive your
> album collection, then you're right, It's either lossless or it isn't
> (Why do I have a sneaking suspicion you're a cuesheet guy? ;) ).
>
Ben Wrote:
> ... So, I've manually deleted 'dupes' (whether exact or not, the same
> studio recording of a song) ...
>
> Ben
And in my original post the removing of these 'exact' copies was all I
was on about, with Slimserver (or even some other 3rd party program)
just putting a reference file i
Jim Wrote:
> No problem, in later posts I might have come over as slightly
> patronising but that was because I was getting annoyed that nobody
> understood my "it's either lossless or it isn't" point of view. I
> never faulted the idea of the original poster, just how he was
> considering imple
CavesOfTQLT Wrote:
> I see we're back onto comparing files together, rather than comparing
> the actual songs.
Yeah, best stop doing that.
Well, I'm sorry CavesOfTQLT you were right. I've seen the light and I
now have over 700 gigabytes of hard disk space, and a few thousand
bucks in my pocket
> I still can't see where all these references to comparing, say FLAC
> files together, to see if they're the same has come in. A checksum of a
> copy of a song off one album, is very unlikely to match a copy of the
> _same_ song off another one, due to volume diffs, length of entry and
> exit sile
I see we're back onto comparing files together, rather than comparing
the actual songs. Whether those songs are encoded as FLAC, OGG or any
other format, and whether they have slight volume differences between
the CDs they're ripped from, is totally moot. Yes one track may sound
better for whateve
Jim Dibb Wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying, Jim. I personally ripped all my CD's at 192k
> MP3 rate and am considering doing it again differently. The volume
> difference between different CDs was not something I had realized.
>
> I felt sympathy to Caves of TQLT and as a supporter of the idea (a
On 5/3/05, Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Time to choose how important lossless is to you, if it's quite
> acceptable to lose entire tracks of a CD as "the other one sounds the
> same", or "ReplayGain will sort out the volume difference" then by all
> means do it, but then ask yourself why you
Jim Dibb Wrote:
> I'd like to hear why it's a waste of disk space to use it and then
> delete all the true dups (not different artists, not different
> arrangements. Just different CDs?).
I'd again like to hear why phrases like "dupe" and "the same" are being
used so liberally with lossless audi
Title: RE: [slim] Re: Removing duplicate tracks
My twopenneth worth..
I have spent a long time thinking about this for my own collection (MP3) and found there are two ways of dealing with it:
1. Remove the dupes - as you guys have been discussing - and create links.
Under
Caves, I'm with you. I can't see why there's any desire to have 3
FLAC copies of the same song off 3 different compilations either. If
you chose 1 as 'best' of the 3, why would you care if you had the
other two as long as the albums the came from played correctly
including that song? An interfac
Michael, a quick reply to your post before I go. In cases like this
where you've got slightly different versions of a song but they're all
tagged the same, then I did mention in one of my posts above that you
could listen to each 'duplicate' and decide which to keep and which to
'delete'.
Anyway,
I give up. I just don't know where this reference to file formats has
come from because I'm on about songs and their repetitions in the music
library, and not whether they're in FLAC, mp3, OGG or MA formats.
Anyway, just forget I brought up the subject.
Edit: This was posted without me seeing
Yeah, this is a tricky idea.
Perhaps your example of Beat It is correct, but I have three copies of
"Billy Jean" - 2 by him - one was the original demo and one was the
finished copy - and one by someone else completely.
If you ask the software to consider as duplicates all copies of Billy
Jean b
CavesOfTQLT Wrote:
> The size of the file, length it is, recorded at 89dB or 93dB, etc. makes
> no difference - it's still the same *Beat It* track.
If it doesn't make a difference then why are you using FLAC?
Why not re-encode all your FLAC's to 320kbps MP3's. And you could
additionally do th
Quoting CavesOfTQLT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> and I'm sure it would take just a
> small amount of additional programming to accomplish a system like
> this.
everyone says this, but it is never about how much code it may or may not take.
its a small abount of code ot make slimserver send a signal
Geez, this is getting deep and it needn't be.
Take Michael Jackson's *Beat It* song. As far as I know he's only ever
done one version, and that's the one that appears on his _Thriller_
album.
Now if that same track appears on a compilation, say _Hits_Of_The_80s_,
and I happen to have both those
If this feature is going to go anywhere, I would like the "duplicate
avoiding" links to be in the file system.
That way if you are going to rebuild the database from scratch you
wouldn't lose anything.
I guess on a linux server, I could remove a "duplicate" file and
replace it with a link (hard/
CavesOfTQLT Wrote:
> Concerning duplicate tracks; if I've got R.E.M's Everybody Hurts* on
> one of their albums, and I've also got the _same_ track on a
> compilation, and _another_ on another compilation, that's three copies
> taking up space, whether that space is valuable or not. Surely it wo
CavesOfTQLT Wrote:
> Concerning duplicate tracks; if I've got R.E.M's Everybody Hurts* on
> one of their albums, and I've also got the _same_ track on a
> compilation, and _another_ on another compilation, that's three copies
> taking up space, whether that space is valuable or not.
I fully und
Concerning duplicate tracks; if I've got R.E.M's Everybody Hurts* on
one of their albums, and I've also got the _same_ track on a
compilation, and _another_ on another compilation, that's three copies
taking up space, whether that space is valuable or not. Surely it would
be easy in this day and
CavesOfTQLT Wrote:
> Since starting the trial the one thing I've noticed is the amount of
> duplicate tracks I've got, in some cases I've got six copies of the
> same track due to them being on different albums, and they're all
> taking up space that could be used for five other different tracks.
Yep it would require all the tags to be exactly the same, and the
results from the online databases don't help, but I, and I'm sure there
are many who are using the Slimserver system, well especially
perfectionists, manually correct the tags after ripping them. I can't
think of a single CD where I
ng time to get the naming (and years) consistent. Have a look at how many
are different in your collection.
Cheers,
James
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of CavesOfTQLT
Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 1:14 PM
To: discuss@lists.slimde
I certainly second this idea..
I have many compilation albums - especially the "chill out" variety and
you can guarantee that at least 2 tracks are the same on all the albums
(g!)
I like your idea on how it would work, but having absolutely now idea
how to program Perl then all I can do is sti
Sorry I can't do anything to actually help the situation along. I'm
not even on 6.x.x yet because I'm just running an SB1 and the 5.4 is
working fine for me. Wish I had the time to play with this stuff more
(and slightly better Perl skills.)
On 5/2/05, CavesOfTQLT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
Jim Dibb Wrote:
> That's a great idea!
Cheers Jim.
I just don't see the reason to have multiple copies of the same thing
on your server, unless you're happy to show off to someone that you've
got 1 'tracks' when you've actually only got 8000 ;) [That's a joke
BTW]
Hey maybe the Slimserver t
29 matches
Mail list logo
