INTERACT FORUM

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Future function for track/album replacement?  (Read 2723 times)

MrHaugen

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3774
Future function for track/album replacement?
« on: September 21, 2007, 01:11:50 am »

Just wondering if it would be  possible to make a tool/feature that could easily replace badly ripped files, or files in a better format, with old ones?

Today I'm marking many tracks with a "Replace" tag, because the track is damaged during ripping. Later on i switch it with a new, good track. I have also started to reripp alot of my albums to lossless (flac). Switching this albums takes quite some time. There is about 6 steps inwolved in this.

Would it not be possible to make a tool called "Replace tracks with new files" that does something like this?

1. Open a browser
2. Select new track(s) and hit ok

The tracks are automaticaly moved and replaced with the old ones, under the same directory structure it is in "Filename (path)"
The file type are changed if the new file differs from the original. Need to work for single files and multiple files or albums.

This would same me and others alot of time
Logged
- I may not always believe what I'm saying

hit_ny

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3310
  • nothing more to say...
Re: Future function for track/album replacement?
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2007, 03:47:57 am »

Isn't that just as tedious ?

As you would have to select & designate each replacement track anyway.
Logged

sherbs

  • Regular Member
  • World Citizen
  • ***
  • Posts: 249
Re: Future function for track/album replacement?
« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2007, 10:29:55 am »

Quote
Isn't that just as tedious ?

As tedious as:
import the file
open it in the same view as old file
transfer tags (one by one)
delete old file
rename new file from propteries
quick find for cover art?

for each file

I would second this idea, especially if it included tag tranfers
Logged

MrHaugen

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3774
Re: Future function for track/album replacement?
« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2007, 10:32:14 am »

Would probably not make much difference for single track replacement, but it would be less confusing to have one single correct way of replacing tracks.
When it comes to whole albums, and several of them, it could save alot of time. At least if there would be some way of replacing files with different file types.

Let's say you have the following conditions:
Want to change 4 albums of 2 artists. This albums in the library are MP3 only. You have new albums in Flac. All except Perl Jam - Vs, wich is MP3 (just replacing a album with alot of corrupt tracks). The directories are the same on the source and target disk.

Nirvana\From The Muddy Banks Of The Wishkah
Nirvana\Incesticide
Pearl Jam\Vitalogy
Pearl Jam\Vs

1. You select the 4 albums in the library and hit "Library Tools -> Replace Tracks/Albums"
2. You browse to the ripping base folder. For instance E:\Ripping
3. MC recognise matches the underlaying folder structure with the ones from the library
4. MC checks that the track numbers for each album are the same as in the library. Could also have a check to see is the file name is about the same. Some level of accuracy, to prevent mixup in track order and track titles
5. MC then replaces the original files with the new ones (moves the files)
6. MC updates the file type if it differs from the original.
7. MC writes tags to the new files


That's my dream
Logged
- I may not always believe what I'm saying

hit_ny

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3310
  • nothing more to say...
Re: Future function for track/album replacement?
« Reply #4 on: September 21, 2007, 11:55:08 am »

..and there are many places it can trip up and make mistakes, cept since this is a computer doing the job, it works at warp speed and you get to clean up the mess or if you're unlucky, spot it much later.

Sorry, but i think unless a really simple(?) way to do this is devised it will be just as difficult since you will have to know the steps & conditions to do it correctly or in other words no better than what is proposed below.

If i was in your shoes this is how i'd do it:

- move you designated albums to a special folder, say upgrade, using MC.
- Add all those files to PN, so you can see them all in one place and work on them.
- rename the file extension of your mp3 albums to .flac.
- close MC.
- Use explorer or other to move those mp3 albums out and replace them with the flac, making sure [Filename] is identical.
- open MC and then
  - update the PN file tags from library (writes tags to the files)
  -followed by an update library from tags.(updates file info in the library from the files, in this case mp3-->flac)

you are done, all your tags are in place and MC is none the wiser.
Logged

richard.e.morton

  • World Citizen
  • ***
  • Posts: 217
Re: Future function for track/album replacement?
« Reply #5 on: September 21, 2007, 03:06:05 pm »

As tedious as:
import the file
open it in the same view as old file
transfer tags (one by one)
delete old file
rename new file from propteries
quick find for cover art?

for each file

I would second this idea, especially if it included tag tranfers


if, you've submitted your track listings to YADB, when you re-rip it'll pick up your cds again... then you dont have to worry about moving tags.

then all we'd need is an intelligent remove duplicates function looking for same tagged files and removing the lower quality files. I would like to see that function.

Rich
Logged
Media Center 12 with Girder and Netremote
Windows XP Pro SP2
Tranquil T2e
Via SP13000
2x500GB in RAID1
Testing AJAX Web-I/F
Humax DVB PVR-9600T
Denon ADV-1000
Celestion F-Series Speakers

MrHaugen

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3774
Re: Future function for track/album replacement?
« Reply #6 on: September 21, 2007, 06:02:49 pm »

If i was in your shoes this is how i'd do it:

- move you designated albums to a special folder, say upgrade, using MC.
- Add all those files to PN, so you can see them all in one place and work on them.
- rename the file extension of your mp3 albums to .flac.
- close MC.
- Use explorer or other to move those mp3 albums out and replace them with the flac, making sure [Filename] is identical.
- open MC and then
  - update the PN file tags from library (writes tags to the files)
  -followed by an update library from tags.(updates file info in the library from the files, in this case mp3-->flac)

you are done, all your tags are in place and MC is none the wiser.

I really don't understand how this is supposed to be faster than my suggestion:
Select tracks or albums, brows to a base directory and hit OK. Files are moved replaced and updated.

if, you've submitted your track listings to YADB, when you re-rip it'll pick up your cds again... then you dont have to worry about moving tags.

then all we'd need is an intelligent remove duplicates function looking for same tagged files and removing the lower quality files. I would like to see that function.

If everyone DID upload their track info to YADB, the yes, it could be enough in some cirumstances. At least for the people that don't use coustomized tags, track rating, artist rating, album rating etc. etc. I Have not ever gotten this tags from YADB...
I'm very anal when it comes to tagging my tracks. When I allready have tagged tracks, I know they are good. I do NOT want to trade those for any other tags that's on YADB. Even if I have uploaded the tags the day before, I can't be certain that it's MY tags that are downloaded the next day, can I?

That's why I want a somewhat intelligent system to switch my files and update the tags from the libary.

It's only me and sherbs that think such a thing would be good? I can't really see any downsides.
Logged
- I may not always believe what I'm saying

hit_ny

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3310
  • nothing more to say...
Re: Future function for track/album replacement?
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2007, 06:17:10 am »

Let's say you have the following conditions:
Want to change 4 albums of 2 artists. This albums in the library are MP3 only. You have new albums in Flac. All except Perl Jam - Vs, wich is MP3 (just replacing a album with alot of corrupt tracks). The directories are the same on the source and target disk.

Nirvana\From The Muddy Banks Of The Wishkah
Nirvana\Incesticide
Pearl Jam\Vitalogy
Pearl Jam\Vs

1. You select the 4 albums in the library and hit "Library Tools -> Replace Tracks/Albums"
2. You browse to the ripping base folder. For instance E:\Ripping
3. MC recognise matches the underlaying folder structure with the ones from the library
4. MC checks that the track numbers for each album are the same as in the library. Could also have a check to see is the file name is about the same. Some level of accuracy, to prevent mixup in track order and track titles

Steps 3 & 4 involve some sort of magic that i cannot understand.

What's the minimum requirement for success here ?

that [Filename (path)] and [Filename (name)] or [Track #] be identical  ?

How to determine the mapping between files in the mp3 directory and its flac equivalent ?

so that MC will accurately detect the right files.

then

After this step, MC will be copying fields from one file to another, currently only manually possible.

But maybe feasible to do this automatically if a good solution is given to the previous question.
Logged

MrHaugen

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3774
Re: Future function for track/album replacement?
« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2007, 06:41:30 am »

Steps 3 & 4 involve some sort of magic that i cannot understand.

What's the minimum requirement for success here ?

that [Filename (path)] and [Filename (name)] or [Track #] be identical  ?

I was thinking something like this:

Compare Filename (path) from source (the library albums) with the path of the new albums.

We have the paths
D:\Music\Pearl Jam\Vs\       (library)
D:\Import\Pearl Jam\Vs\      (new albums)

1. Browse to base path for the library albums:    D:\Music               (possibly saved for future replacement?)
2. Browse to base path of import folder             D:\Import

3. MC compares File (path):
\Pearl Jam\Vs\       (library)
\Pearl Jam\Vs\      (new albums)

Album path match found. Moving to next step.

4. Check number of tracks in library Album:
Library:           Pearl Jam - Vs = 12
Replace Album: Pearl Jam - Vs = 12
Album match found.

This would be the simplest form. The tracks would have to have be identical in File name and track numbering.


We could also take it a step or two further.

5. Check Filename in labrary against replacement file:
Library:               W.M.A
Replacement file:  WMA
- No match.

6. Remove everything except letters from both Library and replacement files. Compare again.
Library:               WMA
Replacement file:  WMA
- Probable match

This is one of the simplest forms of comparing I belive. I have used it my self in a plugin, and it works pretty well.
I'm NOT an expert in how how this comparing techniques works, but I do belive there are code that easily could compare two strings, and give a result in % probability of a match. Another excample could be to count every letter, and find out how good the match is.

Example:
Filename: Indifference     i(2), n(2), d(1), f(2), e(3), r(1), c(1)
Filename: Indifference     i(2), n(2), d(1), f(1), e(3), r(1), c(1)
92% Match

Accept 80% and higher. Prompt user for comparing when lower than 80%.

7. Replace album tracks (keep library filename)
8. Replace file type with new file type
9. Update files from library


Track and album replacement done!  :)
Logged
- I may not always believe what I'm saying

hit_ny

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3310
  • nothing more to say...
Re: Future function for track/album replacement?
« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2007, 08:29:17 am »

Quote
I was thinking something like this:

Compare Filename (path) from source (the library albums) with the path of the new albums.

We have the paths
D:\Music\Pearl Jam\Vs\       (library)
D:\Import\Pearl Jam\Vs\      (new albums)

1. Browse to base path for the library albums:    D:\Music               (possibly saved for future replacement?)
2. Browse to base path of import folder             D:\Import

3. MC compares File (path):
\Pearl Jam\Vs\       (library)
\Pearl Jam\Vs\      (new albums)

Album path match found. Moving to next step.

4. Check number of tracks in library Album:
Library:           Pearl Jam - Vs = 12
Replace Album: Pearl Jam - Vs = 12
Album match found.

This would be the simplest form. The tracks would have to have be identical in File name and track numbering.

upto here everything is ok.

Now [Filename (name)] must also be identical, for MC to think nothing is changed.

This is where we come up against a limitation, its not possible to select two files and say copy [Filename (name] from file a to file b. If its a set of files, set a --> set b, then its even less trivial.

How to do the mapping ?

Probability is one way but its messy.

Because a user would then select many files and expect it to work and a mistake could happen easily (maybe one file is less in the other set or vice-versa) and be harder to detect. The program has to try and catch if there is a problem somewhere and then tell the user where it is :)

If this part can be done as easily as other functions in Library Tools-> then i think its workable. But otherwise, it appears there is little improvement over the workaround suggested earlier.

What i do in this situation is
- create a custom field called [Filename (backup)]
- show this column in PN next to [Filename (name)]
- enter the target [Filename (name)] for each file manually in this field
- Move [Filename (backup)]--->[Filename (name)]

This way i can see the current & target filenames, next to each other in PN and its quick scan to see if everything is ok.

It would be nice if MC allowed a way to do a mass copy of designated fields from file to file, but then the responsibility is on the user to ensure the files are in correct order etc. Therefore you are back to same problem again.

There is also the GUI consideration, such types of operations would work best if you could display files next to each other, for easy compare. Like how fields for a file are displayed adjacent to one another.

But the way it is now each file is below the other like in a list. This is a major GUI change. Maybe you could do it with split views but this is not an elegant solution.
Logged

MrHaugen

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3774
Re: Future function for track/album replacement?
« Reply #10 on: September 22, 2007, 08:54:26 am »

It would be nice if MC allowed a way to do a mass copy of designated fields from file to file, but then the responsibility is on the user to ensure the files are in correct order etc. Therefore you are back to same problem again.

There is also the GUI consideration, such types of operations would work best if you could display files next to each other, for easy compare. Like how fields for a file are displayed adjacent to one another.

But the way it is now each file is below the other like in a list. This is a major GUI change. Maybe you could do it with split views but this is not an elegant solution.

That's exatly why I think it's important with a promt for confirmation when there is a mismatch, and a messagebox with the files lined up next to each other for comparison. And possibly the ability to move files up and down to match track numbering.

I hear what you are saying, but I do not think it's as problematic as you want it to be.

upto here everything is ok.

Now [Filename (name)] must also be identical, for MC to think nothing is changed.

This is where we come up against a limitation, its not possible to select two files and say copy [Filename (name] from file a to file b. If its a set of files, set a --> set b, then its even less trivial.

How to do the mapping ?

Why would you copy the filename anyway? What I suggested is this:

Is there is a match, move the files, rename them to what it was originaly (with the exeption when file types change), and update files with the library tags.


This seems more and more like a plugin projct I have to undertake my self. But I do not have the skills!!  :-\
Logged
- I may not always believe what I'm saying

hit_ny

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3310
  • nothing more to say...
Re: Future function for track/album replacement?
« Reply #11 on: September 22, 2007, 09:28:12 am »

Quote
Why would you copy the filename anyway? What I suggested is this:

Is there is a match, move the files, rename them to what it was originaly (with the exeption when file types change), and update files with the library tags.

Because there must be a rule that says if so & so is equal, then a pair has been found, the criteria to match files.

[Filename] is used currently by MC to determine whether a file is unique or not.

You could try with other parameters like tags but [Filename (name)] is the simplest one. In fact if you have the new flacs, chances are you have not tagged them anyway, so filename is the best to use here.

Quote
I hear what you are saying, but I do not think it's as problematic as you want it to be.

Think of it this way, how often will such a feature be used ?

One off's here & there. That might not make it worth to do when other features could be more useful.

Is there a way to show other jobs can also be done with this, otherwise i agree its so specific that a plugin is prolly the only hope of seeing it being implemented.
Logged

MrHaugen

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3774
Re: Future function for track/album replacement?
« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2007, 09:59:22 am »

Because there must be a rule that says if so & so is equal, then a pair has been found, the criteria to match files.

[Filename] is used currently by MC to determine whether a file is unique or not.

That's the good thing about programming. You can use variables!
You read the tag data form the "Filename (name)", put it in a variable. You get the file name (not filename (name)!) and put it in another variable.
Compare the variables, and if there is a match then rename the new file to the filename (name) tag and replace the old file.

There you have your "if so & so is equal, then a pair has been found" rule.


I belive this could be used to replace albums with better quality. Some people do this I think.
You could also use it to change single tracks wich are bad.

Logged
- I may not always believe what I'm saying

hit_ny

  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3310
  • nothing more to say...
Re: Future function for track/album replacement?
« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2007, 10:23:34 am »

That's exatly why I think it's important with a promt for confirmation when there is a mismatch, and a messagebox with the files lined up next to each other for comparison. And possibly the ability to move files up and down to match track numbering.
Then this is the only part left to be done.

Maybe a seperate dialog with 2 panes, with the ability to select a directory at the top for each pane or maybe better allow 2 search bars, so you can use expressions or any smartlist like syntax. Source pane on the left & destination on the right.

The panes below then change into a file view and display [Filename (name)] of each file from the folder previously selected. Same familiar interface, F2 to edit or modify, drag files up & down to re-order. Select which files in both panes to be matched and maybe an option to designate which fields to be copied over and a GO button.

Now if there is a pulldown menu at the bottom of the panes like in files view that allows Single Folder, Single Folder (no data files), Recursive etc, then many directories could be viewed at the same time.
Logged

MrHaugen

  • Regular Member
  • Citizen of the Universe
  • *****
  • Posts: 3774
Re: Future function for track/album replacement?
« Reply #14 on: September 22, 2007, 07:51:09 pm »

I would personally like it better if it was a bit more automatic, but I like your idea.
Would be a good compromise.

One thing that I'm sure of is that todays steps to replace files or albums are way to heavy.
Logged
- I may not always believe what I'm saying
Pages: [1]   Go Up