More > JRiver Media Center 27 for Windows
Custom fields - 'store 1 value per album' problem
InflatableMouse:
--- Quote from: haggis999 on July 22, 2021, 12:52:47 pm ---Can you please give specific examples of a CD with three different versions, as I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
--- End quote ---
Sure.
1985 reissue, German release:
https://www.discogs.com/Elton-John-Madman-Across-The-Water/release/3080828
https://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/186376
1995 remaster:
https://www.discogs.com/Elton-John-Madman-Across-The-Water/release/376815
https://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/163609
2019 remaster SHM in paper sleeve:
https://www.discogs.com/Elton-John-Madman-Across-The-Water/release/13973778
https://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/168559
There are many more of that same album, literally hundreds actually. Most of them are from the same digital source and will be identical, but the examples above are clearly different from each other (look at the DR numbers on the second link).
Almost every CD ever released will have multiple versions that sound different, because they were remastered, remixed or come from different tapes. Some were only dynamically compressed to make them sound louder.
For vinyl releases it can get even crazier. The same mastering could be pressed at different plants around the world from different lacquers, and sound very different from each other. This is particularly true for releases from the 60s to the 80s when vinyl was king. For the above album I have an LP which was never released as a CD (mastered specifically for vinyl).
If I wanted to differentiate some of those versions I would have to go crazy on the titles with barcodes or catalog numbers, but like I said, sometimes those numbers are the same and the difference can only be told from the matrix runouts on an LP (or CD, same thing).
And then there are digital downloads, HDtracks for example. Some albums were remastered specifically for that medium too.
haggis999:
You made the point that your various versions of the 'Madman Across The Water' album are not the same as one another, so I don't really understand your reluctance to give them unique album names. Using the following suggestions would ensure that they are always listed together and the suffix would probably be enough for you to remember the differences.
Elton John - Madman Across the Water (19?? LP)
Elton John - Madman Across the Water (1985)
Elton John - Madman Across the Water (1995)
Elton John - Madman Across the Water (2019)
If a year flag was not appropriate to distinguish between another set of recordings, I'd recommend that you just find some other simple identifier that would do the job. All that matters is that you understand what that identifier means. Using something obscure like a barcode or catalogue number would not serve that purpose.
InflatableMouse:
--- Quote from: haggis999 on July 22, 2021, 04:38:00 pm ---I don't really understand your reluctance to give them unique album names.
--- End quote ---
I understand where you're coming from, I am using this way of distinguishing between album versions since forever and it has always bothered me because:
* They are not unique albums, they are unique versions of the same album.
* Any information I add to the album field is extraneous; its not suposed to be there.
* It makes long album names even longer and long fields are cut off which makes album versions indistinguisable from each other in JRemote, Panel and Theater View.
* It messes up other features like finding online information.
* And last but not least, its not a solution to the problem.
If it works acceptably well for you all the better, just accept that it doesn't work very well for the above reasons, depending on how you use MC. I came to ask if there are other ways I hadn't thought about, some options I had missed. It looks like there isn't.
So in that case, wouldn't it be better if we get some control over what is an album? The default can be what is it is now which seems to work fine for the majority of users, and if someone wants to include another field to be evaluated for what constitutes an album, they can do so by ticking a box for the appropriate field. Or, imagine selecting a bunch of files which constitutes an album, right clicking them and select an option 'Group as Album'.
Let's make this a feature request :).
haggis999:
I might have a solution for you, that works for me when I want to create a group of videos that belong to a box set of classical music (ripped from my Blu-ray collection). I would never wish to play an entire box set at one time, so I normally create a separate MKV file for each work within the set.
I created a custom tag called AlbumGroup. For videos within a box set, this tag would have a value such as 'Beethoven String Quartets Box Set', 'Sibelius Symphonies Box Set' and 'Shostakovich Box Set'. For all other videos, it is set to 'All Movies (exc special album groups)'.
My customised view for videos selects video thumbnails by Genre but is sorted by AlbumGroup, so my box sets each appear as a separate set of thumbnails.
Would something similar work for your version sets?
InflatableMouse:
Maybe, I will need to experiment a bit to see if I can find a way that works better than only editing the [Album] field.
I'll give it some thought, thanks for thinking along!
For now, I am testing / trying the following:
Create a new library field called [Album Title]
Made it of type 'Calculated data'
With this expression:
--- Code: ---Regex([Album], /#^(.+?)((\s*\[[^]]*\])|(\s*\([^)]*\)))?$#/, 1)
--- End code ---
I've tested the regular expression on regex101 as
--- Code: ---^(.+?)((\s*\[[^]]*\])|(\s*\([^)]*\)))?$
--- End code ---
and tested it against several mutilated ::) album titles, like:
--- Code: ---some album name [sacd]
another one (bla)
and yet another [sacd (dlx)]
--- End code ---
It seems to work fine, it consistently marks the text between square brackets and braces, but in MC the field remains empty.
My regex foo isn't bad, but I'm no expert either, so any help here with what is going wrong?
Thanks!
Edit: Can an Administrator move this to the version 28 board please? I posted this before I upgraded, but have since upgraded to v.28. Thanks!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version