![]() (Also AcoustID ignores any recording shorter then 30 seconds in total duration.) Something else that’s not well documented about AcoustIDs, is that they only identify the first 120 seconds of any recording… if you have two different recordings, which are identical for the first two minutes, and then diverge, AcoustID will be unable to tell them apart. Oh yeah, there’s these docs too: AcoustID - MusicBrainz Wiki but they don’t go into a lot of detail… ![]() It mostly seemed to match things up based on time duration… so, two songs that just happened to be the same length would be associated in Picard… and if the user didn’t notice, and they hit the “Submit AcoustIDs” button… now everyone else in the future will be confused as to why this recording is so badly misidentified.Īlso if you drag and drop a bunch of recordings onto the wrong album in Picard, it’ll try to do this associating too, and then if you don’t notice before hitting “Submit AcoustIDs” (like, you thought you were submitting something else…) then things will also be mixed up. And I speculate that how this may have happened, is that in older versions of Picard, if you just dumped a few thousand MP3s or whatever into it, and then had some identified, and some not (yet)… you could hit a button to have Picard try and match things up, and many times it would get things spectacularity wrong. I have seen some very very wrong links between AcoustIDs and recording MBIDs before. I have personally, accidentally, submitted acoustIDs for the wrong tracks, and then had to immediate go to the MusicBrainz web site to unlink them so that in the future no one else would be confused by my mistake. And, I think that Picard’s UI does not make it easy to see what exactly it is you are doing when you submit AcoustIDs… Even if you enable the obscure, hard-to-see, column that shows a red or grey colored squiggle next to a track when it thinks there’s a new AcoustID to submit… the data is still very opaque. So, about that erroneous attachment… How does this happen? Well, anybody can get an API key to submit new AcoustIDs from Picard… And then submitting new AcoudID association with Picard is really simple, really really simple… so easy that you can do it by accident. Purchasing both unlocks the complete program).If you register as an editor on MusicBrainz, you can unlink any AcoustID from any recording it may have been erroneously attached to… ![]() Each license unlocks only the functions of a part of the program. ![]() If this involves a commercial impact (as it is obvious to think if you switch from two programs to one), you can still think of a solution (the first that comes to mind is to keep 2 songkong and jaikoz style licenses leaving the user the decision to purchase one or both. But this involves a major development effort which I understand may not be sustainable.įor this reason I was wondering if it would not be better to focus on a single program that includes the features of these two. If both software were always updated in parallel, then there would be no “communication” problems for those who use them both. I say this because it is quite evident that the development efforts are focused on songkong (and this has already been for some years) and this creates an “alignment” problem for those who use both software (see the list of extra fields in songkong, or the power of editing via jaikoz spreadsheet that does not have songkong, etc …). ![]() As a user of both programs, and having tested the excellent SongKong update (I am also a Roon user and the latest version of songkong helps a lot), i thought a consideration that I had already in mind for a while: it wouldn’t be better have a single program that combines Songkong’s “massive” power with Jaikoz’s “manual” analysis and editing? ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |