Files to edit -> Unsynchronized tags --- Album Artist iss

Anubis · Post by **Anubis** » Sun Mar 27, 2005 8:51 pm

I have started running MM 2.3 on a 2nd machine (a leptop) which is connected to my sound system elsewhere in the house. This 2nd machine has read-only access to the 1st machines music folder structure via a network share. I do all my adding/tagging on the 1st machine.

The problem is that when I add all the tracks to the 2nd machine, a lot of compilation albums do not have their ALBUM ARTIST set as I expect. I'd expect the album artist to be the same as that which is the MM on the 1st machine, which is "various artists". But it is not. It is the artists name, rather than "various artists"

So I went to the 1st machine and FORCED a Tag Synchronisation for one particular compilation album that had the ALBUM ARTISTS wrong on my 2nd machine and then did a rescan of the directory on the3 2nd machine, and the 2nd machine's ALBUM ARTIST fields are now correct.

Now, this was unexpected, as I have done a number of "Files to edit -> Unschronized tags" scans on the 1st machine, and this album did not come up with any tracks needing to be synchronised.

This leads me to believe that the "Files to edit -> Unsynchronized tags" menu option does NOT look at the ALBUM ARTIST field. If this assumption is correct, I'd consider it a bug and needing to be fixed.

Anubis · Post by **Anubis** » Sun Mar 27, 2005 9:12 pm

I've also just discovered that a lot of tracks with ratings on the 2nd machine don't match the 1st machine, yet the "Unsynchronised tags" menu option on the 1st machine doesn't report then as not matching (what is on the hard disk of the 1st machine -- which is where the 2nd machine gets them from).

Post by **jiri** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 3:08 am

Only ID3v1 fields are checked in Unsychronized Tags node. It was implemented this way for several reasons, another version for more complex testing of tags could be implemented in the future.

Jiri

Anubis · Post by **Anubis** » Mon Mar 28, 2005 7:03 am

Ohhhhh, that means I probably have LOTS and LOTS of unsynchronised tags...

Please, please put ID3v2 functionality into MM 2.4

Thanks

Anubis · Post by **Anubis** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 3:30 am

I just discovered a heap more MP3's that have not had their tags synchronised.

What are the chances MM 2.4 is going to help me find them?

Does anybody know any utilities that will go through my MM database and check the tags against the MP3's?

I don't want to synchronise all my files, as that will mean the date modified has changed and will cause all the MP3's to be backed up again...

Anubis · Post by **Anubis** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 6:15 am

jiri wrote:Only ID3v1 fields are checked in Unsychronized Tags node. It was implemented this way for several reasons, another version for more complex testing of tags could be implemented in the future.
Jiri

Any chance this item is even on the radar for implementing in a future version of MM?

I still find some tracks that do not have their tags synchronised.

charlieMOGUL · Post by **charlieMOGUL** » Tue Feb 21, 2006 10:13 am

This "wishlist item" gets my vote as well, since I also sometimes find tracks with unsynchronized (ID3v2) tags. It would be great if Mediamonkey could check for these tags as well.

Thanks in advance,

charlieMOGUL.

Steegy · Post by **Steegy** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 10:52 am

I don't really understand this "non-id3v2" support for synchronising.

Does it mean that for some tracks it will not be possible to sync the tags?

Just tried and saw it was a little better than what it used to be with previous versions:

before synching: 1896 out of synch

after synching: 120 out of synch
- 98 WMA of 642 (15 %)
- 22 MP3 of 15148 (0,15 %)

Wma files seem to have problems synching.
Wouldn't a "sycnhronise log" help to understand why it doesn't work??

Cheers
Steegy

Post by **Lowlander** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:37 pm

I certainly support the id3v2 standard for sync, but I can imagine that it will take ages on a large library. Thats why I like to reiterate a wish to check for unsynchronized tags on a subset of the library. For me a folder subset would work.

Anubis · Post by **Anubis** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 4:47 pm

Yeah, doing a subset would do it for me too.
But then, the times that you would need to run this are minimal, at least for me, say 3 or 4 times a year. I would be happy if it took "hours" to run, as I'd run it overnight anyway.
And if the dev's get smart, it could run in the background anyway, that's what threads are all about.