Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Juradad]

I have a library that is mixed flac, mp3, mp4. The mp3's and mp4's are at mixed bitrates. There are duplicates where i have flac and mp3 (or mp4 files)

I would like to construct a playlist where I capture every title in my library but eliminate the duplicates of lower quality...... so my hierarchy would be....

flac, then mp3/mp4 320, mp3/mp4 196 etc

Is there a way to do this ?

[wig]

I have a library that is mixed flac, mp3, mp4. The mp3's and mp4's are at mixed bitrates. There are duplicates where i have flac and mp3 (or mp4 files)

I would like to construct a playlist where I capture every title in my library but eliminate the duplicates of lower quality...... so my hierarchy would be....

flac, then mp3/mp4 320, mp3/mp4 196 etc

Is there a way to do this ?

You could create a custom field called Duplicates and tag the lower quality files in that field. Then create a smartlist that excludes any files tagged as duplicates. I've done this in my library to avoid duplicates from greatest hits albums, live recordings, etc.

[ProblemChild]

Not sure if wig means hand-tagging, but you could also create a calculated field if you don't want to hand-tag; if the sort ordering
you want is something special,
1. create a field ie [myfield] where IF mp3, =3, if APE, =4, IF FLAC, =5
or whatever order you want.
2. Then just sort before using the 'remove duplicates' option


for instance, I have a nested field [FT/Cmp] showing me filetype and compression:
APE
   extra high
   fast
   normal
MP3
   cbr...
   vbr...

if I sort by that, *then* remove duplicates (using whatever fields you want), it keeps the 1st-ordered
files and dumps the lower ones.
ie
[Media Type]=[Audio] ~sort=[FT\Cmp] ~nodup=[Album],[Name]

gives me what I think you want.

[bunglemebaby]

Do you want to delete the lower quality files or keep them for use on portable players, etc? If the latter, this sounds like a case for using Stacks. The auto-stacking features have worked pretty well for me. (Stacks "combine" the lower and higher quality files into one "visible entry" so that you don't have to see the duplicates. More info on the JR-wiki, I think.)
-JB

[wig]

Not sure if wig means hand-tagging, but you could also create a calculated field if you don't want to hand-tag

Hey, what have you got against hand-tagging? Slow but steady wins the race, right?

Hand Taggers of the world unite! 

[ProblemChild]

LOL!!!
 
But getting back to MC, it kinda sucks with 100,000 files!

[wig]

LOL!!!
 
But getting back to MC, it kinda sucks with 100,000 files!

I know, and your solution (when I finally understood it after the 3rd reading) was very elegant.

It always amazes me how little of MC's functionality I actually use. I've been here since MC10, and watching the growth of the program has been fun. I'd never even heard of Stacks until bunglemebaby's post.

[glynor]

I was going to mention the Stacks feature too.  This scenario is EXACTLY what the Stacks feature was built to address.